On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:32:41 PM UTC-8, stubborn cretin pat dolan inserted both his feet in his mouth:
> 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.
>

Cretin Pattycakes

The second clock shows the time of muon ARRIVAL on Earth expressed in the lab (Earth) frame. The fact that you do not understand this simple fact exposes your native cretinism. Live with it.

Le 20/02/2022 à 00:32, patdolan a écrit :
> 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.

What must be understood, in order to accept the theory of relativity, is
the notion of spatial anisochrony, and the fact that the notion of
absolute universal present time does not exist. It's the primum movens of
the theory, and yet even the biggest names in physics (I don't know why)
seem to stumble over it. However, the idea is not that complex. For
example, let's compare this concept with solar time. A plane leaves Paris
(9 a.m. solar time) and arrives in America at 10 a.m. (solar time). We're
going to say: "Hey, it's weird, terrestrial time is one hour, and the
plane's watch shows four hours!"

Well, that's exactly what happens in relativity (not in the same way of
course) but the measurements are distorted by spatial anisochrony.

This anisochrony means that the speeds are falsely measured, as in the
case of the plane where the terrestrial reference indicates (falsely) that
the plane moved in one hour instead of four in reality.

So we wonder WHY the meson goes so far, when it should disintegrate
before.

Simply because we don't measure its true speed.

We measure a speed of 0.9995 c for example.

While in reality, it moves 32 times faster, and disintegrates on average
32 times further.

What is observable is not necessarily the real.

The equation I gave it in 1986.

Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
or, conversely,
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).

R.H.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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.

In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
moves away from that clock.

Always ask yourself, where is this event? Where is the clock? Where does it
stay?

>
> 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
>

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > 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.
> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
> moves away from that clock.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
>> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
>> moves away from that clock.
>
> In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
> does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.

On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 21:18:41 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
> >> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
> >> moves away from that clock.
> >
> > In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
> > does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
> Yes, exactly.
> >
> > Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer.
> > Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer.
> >
> > Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
> Depends on which events you were to look at.
> > The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
> > clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
> clocks in the earth system. So you don’t expect the time differences
> between the two events to be the same. You shouldn’t even expect them to
> have the same ratio, frame to frame, given that difference. In fact, it
> should be obvious that if the spacetime interval is the same regardless of
> frame between any pair of events, then the time component of that interval
> if the spatial component is zero, is going to be different than the time
> component if the spatial component is not zero.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
> >> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
> >> moves away from that clock.
> >
> > In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
> > does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
> Yes, exactly.
> >
> > Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer.
> > Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer.
> >
> > Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
> Depends on which events you were to look at.
> > The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
> > clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
> clocks in the earth system.
Please be more clinical in your thought processes Bodkin.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
>>>> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
>>>> moves away from that clock.
>>>
>>> In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
>>> does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
>> Yes, exactly.
>>>
>>> Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer.
>>> Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer.
>>>
>>> Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
>> Depends on which events you were to look at.
>>> The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
>>> clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
>> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
>> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
>> clocks in the earth system.
> Please be more clinical in your thought processes Bodkin.
>
> In the muon's frame: a stopwatch is started (the muon is born). 2.2 usec
> of muon-proper-time later a collision with the earth occurs.
>
> In the earth's frame: a stopwatch is turned on in the scintillator lab.
> 4.4 or 1.1 usecs of earth-proper-time later a collision with the muon occurs.

On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 14:34:58 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
> >>>> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
> >>>> moves away from that clock.
> >>>
> >>> In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
> >>> does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
> >> Yes, exactly.
> >>>
> >>> Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer..
> >>> Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer..
> >>>
> >>> Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
> >> Depends on which events you were to look at.
> >>> The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
> >>> clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
> >> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
> >> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
> >> clocks in the earth system.
> > Please be more clinical in your thought processes Bodkin.
> >
> > In the muon's frame: a stopwatch is started (the muon is born). 2.2 usec
> > of muon-proper-time later a collision with the earth occurs.
> >
> > In the earth's frame: a stopwatch is turned on in the scintillator lab.
> > 4.4 or 1.1 usecs of earth-proper-time later a collision with the muon occurs.
> And how do you turn on the stopwatch in the scintillator lab when the muon
> is created a good way away? Please go into great detail on this.

On 2/21/2022 8:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 14:34:58 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
>>>>>> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
>>>>>> moves away from that clock.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
>>>>> does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
>>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer.
>>>>> Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
>>>> Depends on which events you were to look at.
>>>>> The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
>>>>> clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
>>>> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
>>>> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
>>>> clocks in the earth system.
>>> Please be more clinical in your thought processes Bodkin.
>>>
>>> In the muon's frame: a stopwatch is started (the muon is born). 2.2 usec
>>> of muon-proper-time later a collision with the earth occurs.
>>>
>>> In the earth's frame: a stopwatch is turned on in the scintillator lab.
>>> 4.4 or 1.1 usecs of earth-proper-time later a collision with the muon occurs.
>> And how do you turn on the stopwatch in the scintillator lab when the muon
>> is created a good way away? Please go into great detail on this.
>
> Read TAI documentation. You like to read, don't you, poor
> halfbrain?

On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 15:57:20 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/21/2022 8:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 14:34:58 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
> >>>>>> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
> >>>>>> moves away from that clock.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
> >>>>> does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
> >>>> Yes, exactly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer.
> >>>>> Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
> >>>> Depends on which events you were to look at.
> >>>>> The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
> >>>>> clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
> >>>> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
> >>>> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
> >>>> clocks in the earth system.
> >>> Please be more clinical in your thought processes Bodkin.
> >>>
> >>> In the muon's frame: a stopwatch is started (the muon is born). 2.2 usec
> >>> of muon-proper-time later a collision with the earth occurs.
> >>>
> >>> In the earth's frame: a stopwatch is turned on in the scintillator lab.
> >>> 4.4 or 1.1 usecs of earth-proper-time later a collision with the muon occurs.
> >> And how do you turn on the stopwatch in the scintillator lab when the muon
> >> is created a good way away? Please go into great detail on this.
> >
> > Read TAI documentation. You like to read, don't you, poor
> > halfbrain?
> So drunk janitor, are you claiming that the lab tech should trigger the
> stopwatch at a particular value of TAI time? Where does it state that?

On 2/21/2022 10:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 15:57:20 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 8:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 14:34:58 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
>>>>>>>> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
>>>>>>>> moves away from that clock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
>>>>>>> does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
>>>>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer.
>>>>>>> Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
>>>>>> Depends on which events you were to look at.
>>>>>>> The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
>>>>>>> clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
>>>>>> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
>>>>>> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
>>>>>> clocks in the earth system.
>>>>> Please be more clinical in your thought processes Bodkin.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the muon's frame: a stopwatch is started (the muon is born). 2.2 usec
>>>>> of muon-proper-time later a collision with the earth occurs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the earth's frame: a stopwatch is turned on in the scintillator lab.
>>>>> 4.4 or 1.1 usecs of earth-proper-time later a collision with the muon occurs.
>>>> And how do you turn on the stopwatch in the scintillator lab when the muon
>>>> is created a good way away? Please go into great detail on this.
>>>
>>> Read TAI documentation. You like to read, don't you, poor
>>> halfbrain?
>> So drunk janitor, are you claiming that the lab tech should trigger the
>> stopwatch at a particular value of TAI time? Where does it state that?
>
> Nowhere, but competent people know how to
> maintain time, stupid Mike.

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:58:04 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/21/2022 10:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 15:57:20 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 2/21/2022 8:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 14:34:58 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:51:25 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>> In the muon’s rest frame, the clock at the location of the earth at muon
> >>>>>>>> creation does not stay with the earth. You know this, right? The earth
> >>>>>>>> moves away from that clock.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the earth's rest frame, the clock at the point of the muon's creation
> >>>>>>> does not stay with the muon. You know this, right? The muon moves away from that clock.
> >>>>>> Yes, exactly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Experiment A: muon as speeding particle, earth as stationary observer.
> >>>>>>> Experiment B: earth as speeding particle, muon as stationary observer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Experiment A and Experiment B are exactly analogous.
> >>>>>> Depends on which events you were to look at.
> >>>>>>> The principe of relativity should apply. So why does one particular
> >>>>>>> clock (the lab clock) end up displaying different elapsed times for each experiment?
> >>>>>> Well, for one thing, the two events happen at the same place for the clocks
> >>>>>> in the muon system. The two events happen in different places for the
> >>>>>> clocks in the earth system.
> >>>>> Please be more clinical in your thought processes Bodkin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the muon's frame: a stopwatch is started (the muon is born). 2.2 usec
> >>>>> of muon-proper-time later a collision with the earth occurs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the earth's frame: a stopwatch is turned on in the scintillator lab.
> >>>>> 4.4 or 1.1 usecs of earth-proper-time later a collision with the muon occurs.
> >>>> And how do you turn on the stopwatch in the scintillator lab when the muon
> >>>> is created a good way away? Please go into great detail on this.
With pleasure MM. Wait! Why not have Frisch & Smith themselves go into great detail. Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzt8gDSYIM
> >>>
> >>> Read TAI documentation. You like to read, don't you, poor
> >>> halfbrain?
> >> So drunk janitor, are you claiming that the lab tech should trigger the
> >> stopwatch at a particular value of TAI time? Where does it state that?
> >
> > Nowhere, but competent people know how to
> > maintain time, stupid Mike.
> So the tech is in the lab, with a superaccurate clock tracking TAI
> exactly. When does he trigger the stopwatch?
> >
> >> Obviously it is meaningless for the muon, since it is going at nearly c,
> >> it cannot use TAI time at all.
> >
> > It can neither use your "local time" idiocy. It has no brain,
> > you see. That makes it dumber even than you are. It can't
> > use clocks, can't use time.
> So what should be done when this brainless muon gets created?

On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 16:58:04 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> So the tech is in the lab, with a superaccurate clock tracking TAI
> exactly. When does he trigger the stopwatch?

Who is he? A muon? A muon doesn't trigger any
stopwatches. You're spending too much time in
the delusional scenarios of your fellow idiots,
stupid Mike.

> So what should be done when this brainless muon gets created?

Should be done by whom?

On 2/21/2022 11:28 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 16:58:04 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> So the tech is in the lab, with a superaccurate clock tracking TAI
>> exactly. When does he trigger the stopwatch?
>
> Who is he? A muon?

The tech in the lab, janitor. Can't you even read? You didn't even
delete that part this time.

Go back to your vodka-toilet water cocktail.

On Tuesday, 22 February 2022 at 00:12:44 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/21/2022 11:28 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 16:58:04 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> So the tech is in the lab, with a superaccurate clock tracking TAI
> >> exactly. When does he trigger the stopwatch?
> >
> > Who is he? A muon?
> The tech in the lab, janitor. Can't you even read? You didn't even
> delete that part this time.

Sorry, I'm not especially focused when reading idiocies of
a relativistic moron. Anyway, the technician will trigger his
stopwatch when he wants to.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Who is he? A muon?
>
> The tech in the lab, janitor. Can't you even read? You didn't even
> delete that part this time. Go back to your vodka-toilet water cocktail.

that's how you do it in america, a 3rd world country, 200 mil under the
poverty level and 50 mil homeless. However, all countries need armies for
national protection and they can sign alliances with friendly neighbours
for common protection. NATO, however, was established by the Americans and
British to corral and control their European “allies.” European nations
need to evict NATO and their Anglo-Saxon overlords.