"The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
further".

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> further".

Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
from first principles only.

Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.

The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
VALUE.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> > Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> > further".
> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> from first principles only.
>
> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>
> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> VALUE.

To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions" is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 2:46:21 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> further".
>
> R.H.
This rings with truth as loudly as any truth that ever wrang...or something.

Beautiful, Richard. I shall contemplate it all the live long day. I look forward to tomorrow's thought.

patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>> further".
>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>> from first principles only.
>>
>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>
>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>> VALUE.
>
> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"

Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?

> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.

Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.

Le 17/02/2022 à 18:32, patdolan a écrit :
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 2:46:21 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>> further".
>>
>> R.H.
> This rings with truth as loudly as any truth that ever wrang...or something.
>
> Beautiful, Richard. I shall contemplate it all the live long day. I look
> forward to tomorrow's thought.

Merci beaucoup, monsieur.

R.H.

On Thursday, 17 February 2022 at 18:26:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> > Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> > further".
> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> from first principles only.

> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
TAI still keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did. And an opinion of a poor relativistic stinker means nothing
for them.

On Thursday, 17 February 2022 at 18:35:30 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> >>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>> further".
> >> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >> from first principles only.
> >>
> >> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly..
> >>
> >> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >> VALUE.
> >
> > To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth...

Experience fabricated by a relativistic stinker,
unfortunatrely.

> What
> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?

Rather, primitive. Enough even for such an idiot to comprehend.
But unusable, even for animals.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> >>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>> further".
> >> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >> from first principles only.
> >>
> >> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly..
> >>
> >> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >> VALUE.
> >
> > To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?

Python, the abstractions are the words "trajectory" and "fixed point". The fundamental concepts that best capture Wittgensteinian situation are "location" and "motion". Trajectory and point need location and motion to be comprehensible. So "trajectory" and "fixed" are derivative of the the more fundamental "location" and "motion". Prior to these, existence.

> > is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>> further".
>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>> from first principles only.
>>
>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>
>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>> VALUE.
>
> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions" is perhaps
> worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>

I suppose that depends on how close to your accustomed sensibilities you
expect nature to conform.

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

patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>> patdolan wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>> further".
>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>
>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>> VALUE.
>>>
>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>
> Python, the abstractions are the words "trajectory" and "fixed point".

This is my point.

> The fundamental concepts that best capture Wittgensteinian situation are
> "location" and "motion".

No, they are events, lengths and durations (I won't bet much on
Wittgenstein's thought here, given his blunders about Set Thoery
or provability).

> Trajectory and point need location and motion to be comprehensible. So "trajectory" and "fixed" are derivative of the the more fundamental "location" and "motion". Prior to these, existence.

existence : event
space : length
time : duration

There are the fundamental concepts of our intuition of reality.

You may want to follow a modern course on Relativity, Pat. I've found
a very good one, unfortunately in French. There is certainly courses
with a similar quality in English out there.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> >>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>> further".
> >> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >> from first principles only.
> >>
> >> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly..
> >>
> >> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >> VALUE.
> >

> > To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?

Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism. There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both. Problem is, the Universe does not.

> > is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>> patdolan wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>> further".
>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>
>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>> VALUE.
>>>
>
>
>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>
> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.

Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
of yours.

> Problem is, the Universe does not.
>
>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
>

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

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >> patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction..
> >>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>>>> further".
> >>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >>>> from first principles only.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
> >>>>
> >>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >>>> VALUE.
> >>>
> >
> >
> >>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> >> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
> >> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> >> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
> >
> > Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
> > is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
> > There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
> > elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
> > time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
> of yours.

You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof. You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.

> > Problem is, the Universe does not.
> >
> >>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> >> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>>>> further".
>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
>> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
>> of yours.
>
> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.

You have confused your own puzzles.
As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?

> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.

I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
around, yes.

What’s your problem with that again?

>
>
>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
>>>
>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>> patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> >>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>>>>>> further".
> >>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >>>>>> from first principles only.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >>>>>> VALUE.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> >>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
> >>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> >>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
> >>>
> >>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
> >>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
> >>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
> >>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
> >>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
> >> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
> >> of yours.
> >
> > You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
> > perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
> You have confused your own puzzles.
Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
> > You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
> around, yes.
The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the wrongness. Just like Trump.
>
> What’s your problem with that again?
> >
> >
> >>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
> >>>
> >>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> >>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>>>>>> further".
>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
>>>> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
>>>> of yours.
>>>
>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
>> You have confused your own puzzles.
> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?

He has some rough spots but he knows relativity, and he gave you the right
answer about what relativity says, which is not what you claim. Now, since
he put it on a platter for you, you always have the option of slapping it
away and denying that you ever saw it, but then the one that looks like the
ineducable idiot is you.

>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
>> around, yes.
> The books are wrong.

Remarkable statement for someone who’s never read them.

> Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were wrong. Just like the
> Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein was wrong--so what?
> Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan gave the proof.
> It's always an outsider who demonstrates the wrongness. Just like Trump.

Yes, just like Trump who said he didn’t think he’d get the vaccine, then
got Covid, then got the vaccine. Just like Trump who advocated injecting
bleach as an alternative. These outsiders always have the best ideas.

>>
>> What’s your problem with that again?

So what’s your problem with reading books again?
You don’t need books to know what’s right, is that it? You just know things
instinctively? Education is a waste of time?

>>>
>>>
>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > >>>> patdolan wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > >>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> > >>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> > >>>>>>> further".
> > >>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> > >>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> > >>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> > >>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> > >>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> > >>>>>> from first principles only.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> > >>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> > >>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> > >>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> > >>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> > >>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> > >>>>>> VALUE.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> > >>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth.... What
> > >>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> > >>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
> > >>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
> > >>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
> > >>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
> > >>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
> > >> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
> > >> of yours.
> > >
> > > You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
> > > perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
> > You have confused your own puzzles.
> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.

As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he pulled out no less than FOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under. Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event. Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.

You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.

> > As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
> > you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
> > > You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
> > I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
> > around, yes.
> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the wrongness. Just like Trump.
> >
> > What’s your problem with that again?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> > >>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>>>>>>> further".
>>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>>>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
>>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
>>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
>>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
>>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
>>>>> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
>>>>> of yours.
>>>>
>>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
>>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
>>> You have confused your own puzzles.
>> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
> Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own
> choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.

Why are you replying to yourself?

>
> As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he
> pulled out no less than F
YOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under.

Yes, and he explained why and you got confused.

> Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a
> blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event.

So you couldn’t follow it. And that’s his fault. Got it.

> Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.
>
> You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular
> force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.

Well, you didn’t seem to be able to answer the simple question about what
relativity says about transverse velocities, which said to me that you
didn’t know even the basics. Did you expect me to continue when you get
confused over the basics?

>
>>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
>>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
>>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
>>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
>>> around, yes.

So what’s your problem with reading the books, then? Any rationale? Any
believable excuse for why you cannot read a book to save your life?

Look, Pat, I get it. You get very frustrated trying to understand this
stuff, and you lack some basic skills like simple algebra and plugging in
numbers. And so when a book gives you an example for you to work on your
own, you flinch and whine and say that you can’t be expected to figure this
out on your own. So you come to a newsgroup, hoping that someone will teach
you (for free) by walking you through some simple examples, every single
step explicitly done for you with no shortcuts, no skipped steps, every
product and every sum done by hand for you. Because your’e too lazy to be
careful doing the math yourself.

Here’s the reality. Einstein wrote a lovely book aimed at the *general
public* about relativity, where he walks through things in a way that he’d
expect his grandmother to be able to follow. But if you actually take
yourself to the bookstore and flip through the inexpensive little book,
you’re going to find some algebra in it. Nothing hard or complicated, just
a little — because he expected his grandmother to be able to do a little
algebra. If you cannot do a little algebra without help, without someone
constantly correcting mistakes, then RELATIVITY IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR YOU.
Because you do not have even the basic skills needed to read a book aimed
at grandmothers. That’s not a problem with relativity or with grandmothers,
it’s a problem with you. Whether you own up to that is also your problem.

>> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were
>> wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein
>> was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan
>> gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the wrongness. Just like Trump.
>>>
>>> What’s your problem with that again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:07:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> >>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>>>>>>>>> further".
> >>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >>>>>>>>> VALUE.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> >>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth.... What
> >>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> >>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
> >>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
> >>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
> >>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
> >>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
> >>>>> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
> >>>>> of yours.
> >>>>
> >>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
> >>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
> >>> You have confused your own puzzles.
> >> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
> > Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own
> > choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.
> Why are you replying to yourself?
> >
> > As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he
> > pulled out no less than F
> YOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under.
>
> Yes, and he explained why and you got confused.
> > Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a
> > blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event.
> So you couldn’t follow it. And that’s his fault. Got it.
> > Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.
> >
> > You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular
> > force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.
> Well, you didn’t seem to be able to answer the simple question about what
> relativity says about transverse velocities, which said to me that you
> didn’t know even the basics. Did you expect me to continue when you get
> confused over the basics?

Wrong. I said my analysis was in perfect conformity to the entire corpus on relativistic perpendicular velocities. And demonstrated such with the calibration of the Newton's cradle in relativistic conditions prior to running the experiment.
> >
> >>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
> >>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
> >>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
> >>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
> >>> around, yes.
> So what’s your problem with reading the books, then? Any rationale? Any
> believable excuse for why you cannot read a book to save your life?
>
> Look, Pat, I get it. You get very frustrated trying to understand this
> stuff, and you lack some basic skills like simple algebra and plugging in
> numbers. And so when a book gives you an example for you to work on your
> own, you flinch and whine and say that you can’t be expected to figure this
> out on your own. So you come to a newsgroup, hoping that someone will teach
> you (for free) by walking you through some simple examples, every single
> step explicitly done for you with no shortcuts, no skipped steps, every
> product and every sum done by hand for you. Because your’e too lazy to be
> careful doing the math yourself.
>
> Here’s the reality. Einstein wrote a lovely book aimed at the *general
> public* about relativity, where he walks through things in a way that he’d
> expect his grandmother to be able to follow. But if you actually take
> yourself to the bookstore and flip through the inexpensive little book,
> you’re going to find some algebra in it. Nothing hard or complicated, just
> a little — because he expected his grandmother to be able to do a little
> algebra. If you cannot do a little algebra without help, without someone
> constantly correcting mistakes, then RELATIVITY IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR YOU.
> Because you do not have even the basic skills needed to read a book aimed
> at grandmothers. That’s not a problem with relativity or with grandmothers,
> it’s a problem with you. Whether you own up to that is also your problem.
> >> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were
> >> wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein
> >> was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan
> >> gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the wrongness.. Just like Trump.
> >>>
> >>> What’s your problem with that again?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> >>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:07:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>>>>>>>>> further".
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>>>>>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>>>>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>>>>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>>>>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
>>>>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
>>>>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
>>>>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
>>>>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
>>>>>>> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
>>>>>>> of yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
>>>>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
>>>>> You have confused your own puzzles.
>>>> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
>>> Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own
>>> choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.
>> Why are you replying to yourself?
>>>
>>> As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he
>>> pulled out no less than F
>> YOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under.
>>
>> Yes, and he explained why and you got confused.
>>> Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a
>>> blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event.
>> So you couldn’t follow it. And that’s his fault. Got it.
>>> Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.
>>>
>>> You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular
>>> force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.
>> Well, you didn’t seem to be able to answer the simple question about what
>> relativity says about transverse velocities, which said to me that you
>> didn’t know even the basics. Did you expect me to continue when you get
>> confused over the basics?
>
> Wrong. I said my analysis was in perfect conformity to the entire corpus
> on relativistic perpendicular velocities.

Well that’s what you said, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what
*relativity* says about perpendicular velocities in actuality, does it?

What specifically does relativity say about transverse velocities?

> And demonstrated such with the calibration of the Newton's cradle in
> relativistic conditions prior to running the experiment.
>>>
>>>>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
>>>>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
>>>>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
>>>>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
>>>>> around, yes.
>> So what’s your problem with reading the books, then? Any rationale? Any
>> believable excuse for why you cannot read a book to save your life?
>>
>> Look, Pat, I get it. You get very frustrated trying to understand this
>> stuff, and you lack some basic skills like simple algebra and plugging in
>> numbers. And so when a book gives you an example for you to work on your
>> own, you flinch and whine and say that you can’t be expected to figure this
>> out on your own. So you come to a newsgroup, hoping that someone will teach
>> you (for free) by walking you through some simple examples, every single
>> step explicitly done for you with no shortcuts, no skipped steps, every
>> product and every sum done by hand for you. Because your’e too lazy to be
>> careful doing the math yourself.
>>
>> Here’s the reality. Einstein wrote a lovely book aimed at the *general
>> public* about relativity, where he walks through things in a way that he’d
>> expect his grandmother to be able to follow. But if you actually take
>> yourself to the bookstore and flip through the inexpensive little book,
>> you’re going to find some algebra in it. Nothing hard or complicated, just
>> a little — because he expected his grandmother to be able to do a little
>> algebra. If you cannot do a little algebra without help, without someone
>> constantly correcting mistakes, then RELATIVITY IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR YOU.
>> Because you do not have even the basic skills needed to read a book aimed
>> at grandmothers. That’s not a problem with relativity or with grandmothers,
>> it’s a problem with you. Whether you own up to that is also your problem.
>>>> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were
>>>> wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein
>>>> was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan
>>>> gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the
>>>> wrongness. Just like Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> What’s your problem with that again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:07:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>>>>>>>>> further".
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>>>>>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>>>>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>>>>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>>>>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
>>>>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
>>>>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
>>>>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
>>>>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
>>>>>>> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
>>>>>>> of yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
>>>>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
>>>>> You have confused your own puzzles.
>>>> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
>>> Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own
>>> choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.
>> Why are you replying to yourself?
>>>
>>> As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he
>>> pulled out no less than F
>> YOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under.
>>
>> Yes, and he explained why and you got confused.
>>> Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a
>>> blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event.
>> So you couldn’t follow it. And that’s his fault. Got it.
>>> Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.
>>>
>>> You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular
>>> force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.
>> Well, you didn’t seem to be able to answer the simple question about what
>> relativity says about transverse velocities, which said to me that you
>> didn’t know even the basics. Did you expect me to continue when you get
>> confused over the basics?
>
> Wrong. I said my analysis was in perfect conformity to the entire corpus
> on relativistic perpendicular velocities. And demonstrated such with the
> calibration of the Newton's cradle in relativistic conditions prior to
> running the experiment.
>>>
>>>>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
>>>>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
>>>>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
>>>>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
>>>>> around, yes.
>> So what’s your problem with reading the books, then? Any rationale? Any
>> believable excuse for why you cannot read a book to save your life?
>>
>> Look, Pat, I get it. You get very frustrated trying to understand this
>> stuff, and you lack some basic skills like simple algebra and plugging in
>> numbers. And so when a book gives you an example for you to work on your
>> own, you flinch and whine and say that you can’t be expected to figure this
>> out on your own. So you come to a newsgroup, hoping that someone will teach
>> you (for free) by walking you through some simple examples, every single
>> step explicitly done for you with no shortcuts, no skipped steps, every
>> product and every sum done by hand for you. Because your’e too lazy to be
>> careful doing the math yourself.
>>
>> Here’s the reality. Einstein wrote a lovely book aimed at the *general
>> public* about relativity, where he walks through things in a way that he’d
>> expect his grandmother to be able to follow. But if you actually take
>> yourself to the bookstore and flip through the inexpensive little book,
>> you’re going to find some algebra in it. Nothing hard or complicated, just
>> a little — because he expected his grandmother to be able to do a little
>> algebra. If you cannot do a little algebra without help, without someone
>> constantly correcting mistakes, then RELATIVITY IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR YOU.
>> Because you do not have even the basic skills needed to read a book aimed
>> at grandmothers. That’s not a problem with relativity or with grandmothers,
>> it’s a problem with you. Whether you own up to that is also your problem.

Isn’t it telling, by the way, that this you read and found no sensible way
to respond to it.
There’s always bluster and puffery as an option, but that wouldn’t convey
the honest truth, would it?

>>>> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were
>>>> wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein
>>>> was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan
>>>> gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the
>>>> wrongness. Just like Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> What’s your problem with that again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:07:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> further".
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >>>>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >>>>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >>>>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >>>>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >>>>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >>>>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >>>>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >>>>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >>>>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >>>>>>>>>>> VALUE.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> >>>>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
> >>>>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> >>>>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
> >>>>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
> >>>>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
> >>>>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
> >>>>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon. Relativity allows for both.
> >>>>>>> Nope. So quickly you forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
> >>>>>>> of yours.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
> >>>>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
> >>>>> You have confused your own puzzles.
> >>>> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
> >>> Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own
> >>> choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.
> >> Why are you replying to yourself?
> >>>
> >>> As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he
> >>> pulled out no less than F
> >> YOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under.
> >>
> >> Yes, and he explained why and you got confused.
> >>> Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a
> >>> blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event.
> >> So you couldn’t follow it. And that’s his fault. Got it.
> >>> Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.
> >>>
> >>> You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular
> >>> force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.
> >> Well, you didn’t seem to be able to answer the simple question about what
> >> relativity says about transverse velocities, which said to me that you
> >> didn’t know even the basics. Did you expect me to continue when you get
> >> confused over the basics?
> >
> > Wrong. I said my analysis was in perfect conformity to the entire corpus
> > on relativistic perpendicular velocities.
> Well that’s what you said, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what
> *relativity* says about perpendicular velocities in actuality, does it?
>
> What specifically does relativity say about transverse velocities?
That just as in the case of transverse forces, transverse velocities are diminished by 1/gamma.
> > And demonstrated such with the calibration of the Newton's cradle in
> > relativistic conditions prior to running the experiment.
> >>>
> >>>>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
> >>>>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
> >>>>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
> >>>>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
> >>>>> around, yes.
> >> So what’s your problem with reading the books, then? Any rationale? Any
> >> believable excuse for why you cannot read a book to save your life?
> >>
> >> Look, Pat, I get it. You get very frustrated trying to understand this
> >> stuff, and you lack some basic skills like simple algebra and plugging in
> >> numbers. And so when a book gives you an example for you to work on your
> >> own, you flinch and whine and say that you can’t be expected to figure this
> >> out on your own. So you come to a newsgroup, hoping that someone will teach
> >> you (for free) by walking you through some simple examples, every single
> >> step explicitly done for you with no shortcuts, no skipped steps, every
> >> product and every sum done by hand for you. Because your’e too lazy to be
> >> careful doing the math yourself.
> >>
> >> Here’s the reality. Einstein wrote a lovely book aimed at the *general
> >> public* about relativity, where he walks through things in a way that he’d
> >> expect his grandmother to be able to follow. But if you actually take
> >> yourself to the bookstore and flip through the inexpensive little book,
> >> you’re going to find some algebra in it. Nothing hard or complicated, just
> >> a little — because he expected his grandmother to be able to do a little
> >> algebra. If you cannot do a little algebra without help, without someone
> >> constantly correcting mistakes, then RELATIVITY IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR YOU.
> >> Because you do not have even the basic skills needed to read a book aimed
> >> at grandmothers. That’s not a problem with relativity or with grandmothers,
> >> it’s a problem with you. Whether you own up to that is also your problem.
> >>>> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were
> >>>> wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein
> >>>> was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan
> >>>> gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the
> >>>> wrongness. Just like Trump.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What’s your problem with that again?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:07:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
>>>>>>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
>>>>>>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
>>>>>>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
>>>>>>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
>>>>>>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
>>>>>>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
>>>>>>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon.
>>>>>>>>>> Relativity allows for both.
>>>>>>>>> Nope. So quickly you
>>>>>>>>>> forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
>>>>>>>>> of yours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
>>>>>>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
>>>>>>> You have confused your own puzzles.
>>>>>> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
>>>>> Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own
>>>>> choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.
>>>> Why are you replying to yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>> As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he
>>>>> pulled out no less than F
>>>> YOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and he explained why and you got confused.
>>>>> Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a
>>>>> blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event.
>>>> So you couldn’t follow it. And that’s his fault. Got it.
>>>>> Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.
>>>>>
>>>>> You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular
>>>>> force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.
>>>> Well, you didn’t seem to be able to answer the simple question about what
>>>> relativity says about transverse velocities, which said to me that you
>>>> didn’t know even the basics. Did you expect me to continue when you get
>>>> confused over the basics?
>>>
>>> Wrong. I said my analysis was in perfect conformity to the entire corpus
>>> on relativistic perpendicular velocities.
>> Well that’s what you said, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what
>> *relativity* says about perpendicular velocities in actuality, does it?
>>
>> What specifically does relativity say about transverse velocities?
> That just as in the case of transverse forces, transverse velocities are
> diminished by 1/gamma.

Ah, very good! So you DO know SOMETHING. So how is it you can’t follow what
others have told you about the 4.4 microseconds unambiguously shown as the
elapsed time between two clocks at rest in the earth frame, one near the
creation of the muon and the other at the ground?

>>> And demonstrated such with the calibration of the Newton's cradle in
>>> relativistic conditions prior to running the experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
>>>>>>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
>>>>>>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
>>>>>>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
>>>>>>> around, yes.
>>>> So what’s your problem with reading the books, then? Any rationale? Any
>>>> believable excuse for why you cannot read a book to save your life?
>>>>
>>>> Look, Pat, I get it. You get very frustrated trying to understand this
>>>> stuff, and you lack some basic skills like simple algebra and plugging in
>>>> numbers. And so when a book gives you an example for you to work on your
>>>> own, you flinch and whine and say that you can’t be expected to figure this
>>>> out on your own. So you come to a newsgroup, hoping that someone will teach
>>>> you (for free) by walking you through some simple examples, every single
>>>> step explicitly done for you with no shortcuts, no skipped steps, every
>>>> product and every sum done by hand for you. Because your’e too lazy to be
>>>> careful doing the math yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Here’s the reality. Einstein wrote a lovely book aimed at the *general
>>>> public* about relativity, where he walks through things in a way that he’d
>>>> expect his grandmother to be able to follow. But if you actually take
>>>> yourself to the bookstore and flip through the inexpensive little book,
>>>> you’re going to find some algebra in it. Nothing hard or complicated, just
>>>> a little — because he expected his grandmother to be able to do a little
>>>> algebra. If you cannot do a little algebra without help, without someone
>>>> constantly correcting mistakes, then RELATIVITY IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR YOU.
>>>> Because you do not have even the basic skills needed to read a book aimed
>>>> at grandmothers. That’s not a problem with relativity or with grandmothers,
>>>> it’s a problem with you. Whether you own up to that is also your problem.
>>>>>> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were
>>>>>> wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein
>>>>>> was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan
>>>>>> gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the
>>>>>> wrongness. Just like Trump.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What’s your problem with that again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 2:57:47 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:07:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:35:55 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:45:30 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:26:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The theory of relativity is an abstract and uncertain construction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein deflected the current of human thought more than he carried it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> further".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of Relativity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> expose clearly how space and time as convenient abstractions are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> build on top of physical intuitions of length and duration. Moreover
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein was the first (Poincaré may have been close to that, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't make the last step) to derive the general from of transformation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from first principles only.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover this was the only way to state general transformation equations
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a way that allows to carry on further and deal with gravitation, as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the subsequent development of General Relativity illustrates perfectly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The "opinion" of a cranky M.D. from France, who never understood SR (or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> physics for that matters) and is pathologically unable to do anything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but staying stuck and confused on his own prejudices, refusing to think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> more about it or look at what relativity really says, has absolutely NO
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> VALUE.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To conclude that space and time are "convenient abstractions"
> >>>>>>>>>>> Which part of the daily experience of almost any animal on Earth... What
> >>>>>>>>>>> is a fixed point with respect to me is a trajectory with respect to you
> >>>>>>>>>>> if we are not mutually at rest. Simple, isn't it?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with this, Python. It's pure Galileanism. And Galileanism
> >>>>>>>>>> is not inconsistent. There is no excluded middle with Galileanism.
> >>>>>>>>>> There is with Einsteinianism. Either the lab clock shows 4.4 usecs of
> >>>>>>>>>> elapsed time to the lab technician, or it shows 1.1 usecs of elaspased
> >>>>>>>>>> time to the technician upon scintillation of the muon.
> >>>>>>>>>> Relativity allows for both.
> >>>>>>>>> Nope. So quickly you
> >>>>>>>>>> forget being corrected on this simple misunderstanding
> >>>>>>>>> of yours.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You did no correcting, Bodkin. You only alluded to relativistic
> >>>>>>>> perpendicular impulse without any demonstration, example or proof.
> >>>>>>> You have confused your own puzzles.
> >>>>>> Townes is a fool. Who disagrees with that?
> >>>>> Townes refused to address my problem and instead solved one of his own
> >>>>> choosing. A tactic you are quite familiar with Bodkin.
> >>>> Why are you replying to yourself?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I recall, Townes first set up his rickety old spacetime table. Then he
> >>>>> pulled out no less than F
> >>>> YOUR events to hide my lab clock and my muon under.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, and he explained why and you got confused.
> >>>>> Then he furiously shuffled all four about on the spacetime tabletop in a
> >>>>> blur and bid us pick which entity was under which event.
> >>>> So you couldn’t follow it. And that’s his fault. Got it.
> >>>>> Not even Python could tolerated it and called the relativity police as I recall.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You, Bodkin, stammered out something about relativistic perpendicular
> >>>>> force then backed out of the bar without even drawing your gun.
> >>>> Well, you didn’t seem to be able to answer the simple question about what
> >>>> relativity says about transverse velocities, which said to me that you
> >>>> didn’t know even the basics. Did you expect me to continue when you get
> >>>> confused over the basics?
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. I said my analysis was in perfect conformity to the entire corpus
> >>> on relativistic perpendicular velocities.
> >> Well that’s what you said, but that doesn’t have anything to do with what
> >> *relativity* says about perpendicular velocities in actuality, does it?
> >>
> >> What specifically does relativity say about transverse velocities?
> > That just as in the case of transverse forces, transverse velocities are
> > diminished by 1/gamma.
> Ah, very good! So you DO know SOMETHING. So how is it you can’t follow what
> others have told you about the 4.4 microseconds unambiguously shown as the
> elapsed time between two clocks at rest in the earth frame, one near the
> creation of the muon and the other at the ground?

I completely understand how, in terms of special relativity, that 4.4 usec is unambiguously shown as the elapsed time on your two clocks--Frisch & Smith's clocks. But your problem lies in the fact that I can at the same time completely comprehend, in terms of special relativity, how only 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time shows up on two clocks in the muons rest frame, one near the creation of the muon and one at the point that the lab occupied when the muon was created. And there is where your disaster lies, Bodkin.

Why? Because in that 2.2 usecs of the muon's proper time the lab clock can have only elapsed 1.1 usecs because in the muon's frame the earth is traveling at gamma = 2.

A speeding earth in the latter case is exactly analogous to the the speeding muon in the former case.

There is another level of analysis that explains this situation and how the irreconcilable difference arises. But you and the others must master this material first before I can take you further.

PS--as the original post of this thread so nobly intimates, it is better to further your thinking than to merely divert it.

> >>> And demonstrated such with the calibration of the Newton's cradle in
> >>> relativistic conditions prior to running the experiment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for what you were shown, pretty sure Townes Olson went through this with
> >>>>>>> you detail. You don’t need fifteen people to correct you, do you?
> >>>>>>>> You may have suggested a book as the sum total of your argument.
> >>>>>>> I suggested you read a book to learn the subject rather than floundering
> >>>>>>> around, yes.
> >>>> So what’s your problem with reading the books, then? Any rationale? Any
> >>>> believable excuse for why you cannot read a book to save your life?
> >>>>
> >>>> Look, Pat, I get it. You get very frustrated trying to understand this
> >>>> stuff, and you lack some basic skills like simple algebra and plugging in
> >>>> numbers. And so when a book gives you an example for you to work on your
> >>>> own, you flinch and whine and say that you can’t be expected to figure this
> >>>> out on your own. So you come to a newsgroup, hoping that someone will teach
> >>>> you (for free) by walking you through some simple examples, every single
> >>>> step explicitly done for you with no shortcuts, no skipped steps, every
> >>>> product and every sum done by hand for you. Because your’e too lazy to be
> >>>> careful doing the math yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here’s the reality. Einstein wrote a lovely book aimed at the *general
> >>>> public* about relativity, where he walks through things in a way that he’d
> >>>> expect his grandmother to be able to follow. But if you actually take
> >>>> yourself to the bookstore and flip through the inexpensive little book,
> >>>> you’re going to find some algebra in it. Nothing hard or complicated, just
> >>>> a little — because he expected his grandmother to be able to do a little
> >>>> algebra. If you cannot do a little algebra without help, without someone
> >>>> constantly correcting mistakes, then RELATIVITY IS OUT OF BOUNDS FOR YOU.
> >>>> Because you do not have even the basic skills needed to read a book aimed
> >>>> at grandmothers. That’s not a problem with relativity or with grandmothers,
> >>>> it’s a problem with you. Whether you own up to that is also your problem.
> >>>>>> The books are wrong. Just like 1500s maps showing the NW Passage were
> >>>>>> wrong. Just like the Aristotle's theory of impetus was wrong. Einstein
> >>>>>> was wrong--so what? Lots of physicists have been wrong. Little Pat Dolan
> >>>>>> gave the proof. It's always an outsider who demonstrates the
> >>>>>> wrongness. Just like Trump.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What’s your problem with that again?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Problem is, the Universe does not.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is perhaps worse than to conclude that gender is a convenient abstraction.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe, maybe not, off-topic anyway.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables