Initial Conditions

If Bodkin is approaching me at what I measure to be .867c, it is a fact of relativity that I observe that the meters in his co-moving coordinate frame to be only half the length of the meters in mine. And that his clock is ticking at only half the rate of my clock.

Recursion

I will validly calculate that Bodkin's brain--operating at only half the biological speed of my brain--must calculate that I am traveling through his co-moving coordinate system at twice as many meters in only half as much time as he is moving through mine. So I will validly calculate that my coordinate velocity in Bodkin's co-moving frame as experienced by Bodkin is 3.47c.. While I will continue to validly calculate that my velocity towards him is .867c.

Meanwhile, Bodkin's slowed coordinate brain running at half speed substitutes 3.47c into the LTs to calculate my coordinate velocity to be an astonishing....

Many-Worlds

Bodkin has discerned an inherent danger in the LTs which he has dubbed "PPN" or "ping-pong to nothingness". His concern is well placed. His solution to the PPN is an absolutely arbitrary rule: always treat the rest frame as more special--in terms of LT calculations--than the infinity of other frames an object can exist in wrt all other objects.

But the Bodkin rule runs counter to the relativity of simultaneity, which absolutely depends on no particular frame having precedence over the rest.

Bodkin is faced with another Hobsons Choice: Accept the Many-Worlds, Recursive nature of SR or reject the relativity of simultaneity.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> Initial Conditions
>
> If Bodkin is approaching me at what I measure to be .867c, it is a fact
> of relativity that I observe that the meters in his co-moving coordinate
> frame to be only half the length of the meters in mine. And that his
> clock is ticking at only half the rate of my clock.
>
> Recursion
>
> I will validly calculate that Bodkin's brain--operating at only half the
> biological speed of my brain--must calculate that I am traveling through
> his co-moving coordinate system at twice as many meters in only half as
> much time as he is moving through mine. So I will validly calculate that
> my coordinate velocity in Bodkin's co-moving frame as experienced by
> Bodkin is 3.47c. While I will continue to validly calculate that my
> velocity towards him is .867c.
>
> Meanwhile, Bodkin's slowed coordinate brain running at half speed
> substitutes 3.47c into the LTs to calculate my coordinate velocity to be an astonishing....
>
> Many-Worlds
>
> Bodkin has discerned an inherent danger in the LTs which he has dubbed
> "PPN" or "ping-pong to nothingness".

Well, no, not exactly. What I discerned is that the way you try to use them
(incompetently) runs into PPN. And you, having sat in a Maserati and
promptly backed it into a tree, are now trying to blame the design of the
car for letting you do that.

> His concern is well placed. His solution to the PPN is an absolutely
> arbitrary rule: always treat the rest frame as more special--in terms of LT
> calculations--than the infinity of other frames an object can exist in
> wrt all other objects.
>
> But the Bodkin rule runs counter to the relativity of simultaneity, which
> absolutely depends on no particular frame having precedence over the rest.

And continuing on with the same theme, you are saying that somehow the way
you are trying to use the length contraction and time dilation formulas
must be allowed by some principle you cannot even accurately name. It’s
like you arguing that the gear shift and the accelerator pedal in the
Maserati should be treated equivalently.

>
> Bodkin is faced with another Hobsons Choice: Accept the Many-Worlds,
> Recursive nature of SR or reject the relativity of simultaneity.
>
>
>
>
>

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

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 5:39:30 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Initial Conditions
> >
> > If Bodkin is approaching me at what I measure to be .867c, it is a fact
> > of relativity that I observe that the meters in his co-moving coordinate
> > frame to be only half the length of the meters in mine. And that his
> > clock is ticking at only half the rate of my clock.
> >
> > Recursion
> >
> > I will validly calculate that Bodkin's brain--operating at only half the
> > biological speed of my brain--must calculate that I am traveling through
> > his co-moving coordinate system at twice as many meters in only half as
> > much time as he is moving through mine. So I will validly calculate that
> > my coordinate velocity in Bodkin's co-moving frame as experienced by
> > Bodkin is 3.47c. While I will continue to validly calculate that my
> > velocity towards him is .867c.
> >
> > Meanwhile, Bodkin's slowed coordinate brain running at half speed
> > substitutes 3.47c into the LTs to calculate my coordinate velocity to be an astonishing....
> >
> > Many-Worlds
> >
> > Bodkin has discerned an inherent danger in the LTs which he has dubbed
> > "PPN" or "ping-pong to nothingness".
> Well, no, not exactly. What I discerned is that the way you try to use them
> (incompetently) runs into PPN. And you, having sat in a Maserati and
> promptly backed it into a tree, are now trying to blame the design of the
> car for letting you do that.
> > His concern is well placed. His solution to the PPN is an absolutely
> > arbitrary rule: always treat the rest frame as more special--in terms of LT
> > calculations--than the infinity of other frames an object can exist in
> > wrt all other objects.
> >
> > But the Bodkin rule runs counter to the relativity of simultaneity, which
> > absolutely depends on no particular frame having precedence over the rest.
> And continuing on with the same theme, you are saying that somehow the way
> you are trying to use the length contraction and time dilation formulas
> must be allowed by some principle you cannot even accurately name. It’s
> like you arguing that the gear shift and the accelerator pedal in the
> Maserati should be treated equivalently.

Here's the bottom line Bodkin. I can validly derive nonsense by assuming the "v" in the LTs is identical for two observers in their respective inertial FoRs. See hyper physics http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2

You Bodkin, you can only throw up non sequitur analogies.

Perhaps Aldo can do something to help you. JJ Loader turned out the be relativity yellow belly.

I tell you Bodkin, it turned my stomach to watch Dono, JJ and Aldo up in the branches of a recent thread picking the fleas out of each other's fur.
> >
> > Bodkin is faced with another Hobsons Choice: Accept the Many-Worlds,
> > Recursive nature of SR or reject the relativity of simultaneity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 5:39:30 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Initial Conditions
>>>
>>> If Bodkin is approaching me at what I measure to be .867c, it is a fact
>>> of relativity that I observe that the meters in his co-moving coordinate
>>> frame to be only half the length of the meters in mine. And that his
>>> clock is ticking at only half the rate of my clock.
>>>
>>> Recursion
>>>
>>> I will validly calculate that Bodkin's brain--operating at only half the
>>> biological speed of my brain--must calculate that I am traveling through
>>> his co-moving coordinate system at twice as many meters in only half as
>>> much time as he is moving through mine. So I will validly calculate that
>>> my coordinate velocity in Bodkin's co-moving frame as experienced by
>>> Bodkin is 3.47c. While I will continue to validly calculate that my
>>> velocity towards him is .867c.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Bodkin's slowed coordinate brain running at half speed
>>> substitutes 3.47c into the LTs to calculate my coordinate velocity to be an
>>> astonishing....
>>>
>>> Many-Worlds
>>>
>>> Bodkin has discerned an inherent danger in the LTs which he has dubbed
>>> "PPN" or "ping-pong to nothingness".
>> Well, no, not exactly. What I discerned is that the way you try to use them
>> (incompetently) runs into PPN. And you, having sat in a Maserati and
>> promptly backed it into a tree, are now trying to blame the design of the
>> car for letting you do that.
>>> His concern is well placed. His solution to the PPN is an absolutely
>>> arbitrary rule: always treat the rest frame as more special--in terms of LT
>>> calculations--than the infinity of other frames an object can exist in
>>> wrt all other objects.
>>>
>>> But the Bodkin rule runs counter to the relativity of simultaneity, which
>>> absolutely depends on no particular frame having precedence over the rest.
>> And continuing on with the same theme, you are saying that somehow the way
>> you are trying to use the length contraction and time dilation formulas
>> must be allowed by some principle you cannot even accurately name. It’s
>> like you arguing that the gear shift and the accelerator pedal in the
>> Maserati should be treated equivalently.
>
>
>
> Here's the bottom line Bodkin. I can validly derive nonsense by assuming
> the "v" in the LTs is identical for two observers in their respective inertial FoRs.

Well, no, you cannot *validly* derive that, anymore than you can *validly*
operate a Maserati to back it into a tree. I have seen you try to use the
LT’s completely incorrectly, because you cannot keep track of the events
and do not know what the variable in the transforms stand for. But, as I
have pointed out, all you do when you try that is demonstrate your
incompetence at understanding the basics.

> See hyper physics http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2
>
> You Bodkin, you can only throw up non sequitur analogies.
>
> Perhaps Aldo can do something to help you. JJ Loader turned out the be
> relativity yellow belly.
>
> I tell you Bodkin, it turned my stomach to watch Dono, JJ and Aldo up in
> the branches of a recent thread picking the fleas out of each other's fur.
>>>
>>> Bodkin is faced with another Hobsons Choice: Accept the Many-Worlds,
>>> Recursive nature of SR or reject the relativity of simultaneity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:06:16 PM UTC-7, old fart crank pat dolan wrote:

> I can validly derive nonsense

You ALWAYS derive nonsense, demented old fart

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 10:26:05 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> Initial Conditions
>
> If Bodkin is approaching me at what I measure to be .867c, it is a fact of relativity that I observe that the meters in his co-moving coordinate frame to be only half the length of the meters in mine. And that his clock is ticking at only half the rate of my clock.
>
> Recursion
>
> I will validly calculate that Bodkin's brain--operating at only half the biological speed of my brain--must calculate that I am traveling through his co-moving coordinate system at twice as many meters in only half as much time as he is moving through mine. So I will validly calculate that my coordinate velocity in Bodkin's co-moving frame as experienced by Bodkin is 3.47c. While I will continue to validly calculate that my velocity towards him is .867c.
>
> Meanwhile, Bodkin's slowed coordinate brain running at half speed substitutes 3.47c into the LTs to calculate my coordinate velocity to be an astonishing....
>
> Many-Worlds
>
> Bodkin has discerned an inherent danger in the LTs which he has dubbed "PPN" or "ping-pong to nothingness". His concern is well placed. His solution to the PPN is an absolutely arbitrary rule: always treat the rest frame as more special--in terms of LT calculations--than the infinity of other frames an object can exist in wrt all other objects.
>
> But the Bodkin rule runs counter to the relativity of simultaneity, which absolutely depends on no particular frame having precedence over the rest.
>
> Bodkin is faced with another Hobsons Choice: Accept the Many-Worlds, Recursive nature of SR or reject the relativity of simultaneity.

Many worlds?
If our universe dies does the multiverse Pat?

Mitchell Raemsch