On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:15:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >>>> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> >>>>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> >>>>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> >>>>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> >>>>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> >>>>>> so that equations come out right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which “units of two frames”?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PointedEars
> >>>> The units of time and distance. Many accounts assume you choose them
> >>>> so that the speed of light turns out to be 1 but that just determines
> >>>> them up to a constant factor so they might be different in the two
> >>>> frames which would mean that the factor would have to occur in the
> >>>> Lorentz transformation also. My guess is that everything works out
> >>>> correctly if all observers chose the same number of vibrations of the
> >>>> cesium atom as the basic unit of time. However, I don't know how to
> >>>> prove that works or if it is necessary to add it to the ever growing
> >>>> list of unstated assumptions that underlie relativity theory.
> >>>
> >>> Let me reveal an essential unstated assumption of the Lorentz Transforms.
> >>>
> >>> 0th postulate of Special Relativity: ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' must be true
> >>> between inertial frames for all relative velocities from 0 to c.
> >>>
> >>> But as demonstrated earlier, this unstated postulate is only true when
> >>>
> >>> ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c [ the second postulate ] or when ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = 0
> >> Just in case it isn’t obvious to you, these quantities ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are
> >> coordinate differences between ANY TWO EVENTS as viewed in the two
> >> reference frames. ANY TWO EVENTS. That means many more pairs of events than
> >> those that are related by a traverse of speed v.
> >>
> >> You, though, apparently don’t know what those variables signify and have
> >> taken ∆x/∆t to be v just because you’ve seen that somewhere.
> >>
> >> This is the kind of “logic” invoked by people like you who unfortunately
> >> don’t know enough about the subject to understand what the symbols refer
> >> to. This is the kind of “demonstration” that rightly gets called “not even
> >> wrong”.
> >>
> >> Pat, could you *try* to be a little less lazy in the thinking you put
> >> together before you post, please?
> >
> > You objection does not, nor ever has, made sense Bodkin. Deductive
> > reasoning is always performed in a manner and mode that derives the most
> > general results possible. I have strictly adhered to this logical
> > principle in all my work.
> No, you have not. You have repeatedly claimed that in the Lorentz
> transforms ∆x/∆t=v, which is a statement that is not only factually false
> but conveys a complete lack of understanding of what the symbols mean.

Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing coordinate system S' to be. Reciprocally, ∆'x/∆t' is what observer s'...well, you understand the rest.

The 0th [ and hidden ] postulate of SR states that observers s and s' will ALWAYS agree on their relative velocity wrt each other. Mathematically stated ∆x'/∆t' == ∆x/∆t. The Lorentz Transforms affirm as much inasmuch as there is only a v in the Lorentz Transforms. The student is supposed to us only v when calculating t' & x' and when calculating t & x. There is no v' in the LTs

It is the 0th postulate that Carlo and I contend is unproven. I go further.. I show that assuming the 0th postulate leads to algebraic disaster. I have also painted a stunning word portrait, which features Dirk & Dono, demonstrating the same.

>
> Being able to manipulate symbols algebraically will still not allow you to
> prove anything while you do not know what those symbols mean.
>
> Since you say that this observation makes no sense to you, this further
> underscores the fact that you do not understand what you do not understand,
> even on simple fronts.
> > The work and its results are consummately valid in all respects.
> >
> > That you don't like those results is a matter of psychology. Not logic,
> > algebra or physics.
> >>>
> >>> The 0th postulate is demonstrably false for all other values of ∆x/∆t and
> >>> ∆x'/∆t' between 0 and c.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-7, stubborn cretin pat dolan persevered in his imbecility:

> Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing coordinate system S' to be. Reciprocally, ∆'x/∆t' is what observer s'...well, you understand the rest.
>
Not in the Lorentz transforms, stubborn cretin

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:15:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>>>>> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
>>>>>>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
>>>>>>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
>>>>>>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
>>>>>>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
>>>>>>>> so that equations come out right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which “units of two frames”?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PointedEars
>>>>>> The units of time and distance. Many accounts assume you choose them
>>>>>> so that the speed of light turns out to be 1 but that just determines
>>>>>> them up to a constant factor so they might be different in the two
>>>>>> frames which would mean that the factor would have to occur in the
>>>>>> Lorentz transformation also. My guess is that everything works out
>>>>>> correctly if all observers chose the same number of vibrations of the
>>>>>> cesium atom as the basic unit of time. However, I don't know how to
>>>>>> prove that works or if it is necessary to add it to the ever growing
>>>>>> list of unstated assumptions that underlie relativity theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me reveal an essential unstated assumption of the Lorentz Transforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0th postulate of Special Relativity: ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' must be true
>>>>> between inertial frames for all relative velocities from 0 to c.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as demonstrated earlier, this unstated postulate is only true when
>>>>>
>>>>> ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c [ the second postulate ] or when ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = 0
>>>> Just in case it isn’t obvious to you, these quantities ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are
>>>> coordinate differences between ANY TWO EVENTS as viewed in the two
>>>> reference frames. ANY TWO EVENTS. That means many more pairs of events than
>>>> those that are related by a traverse of speed v.
>>>>
>>>> You, though, apparently don’t know what those variables signify and have
>>>> taken ∆x/∆t to be v just because you’ve seen that somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> This is the kind of “logic” invoked by people like you who unfortunately
>>>> don’t know enough about the subject to understand what the symbols refer
>>>> to. This is the kind of “demonstration” that rightly gets called “not even
>>>> wrong”.
>>>>
>>>> Pat, could you *try* to be a little less lazy in the thinking you put
>>>> together before you post, please?
>>>
>>> You objection does not, nor ever has, made sense Bodkin. Deductive
>>> reasoning is always performed in a manner and mode that derives the most
>>> general results possible. I have strictly adhered to this logical
>>> principle in all my work.
>> No, you have not. You have repeatedly claimed that in the Lorentz
>> transforms ∆x/∆t=v, which is a statement that is not only factually false
>> but conveys a complete lack of understanding of what the symbols mean.
>
> Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make
> it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate
> system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing
> coordinate system S' to be.

That may be what YOU mean by it. But that has NO BEARING whatsoever to the
coordinates x, x’, t, and t’ in the Lorentz transforms, which are in fact
coordinates of EVENTS, not time-dependent coordinates of observers. And
with those coordinates, ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are coordinate differences
between PAIRS OF EVENTS, which are in fact arbitrary.

When you conflate these two, that’s what goes into your “demonstration”,
which demonstrates nothing other than that you don’t know what those
variables denote.

And the fact that you still consider it a “stunning” demonstration, without
even COMPREHENDING that you have made a bonehead error, attests further to
the inanity of you repeating it over and over and over again, so that at
least 18 people can tell you that you’re being an idiot.

> Reciprocally, ∆'x/∆t' is what observer s'...well, you understand the rest.
>
> The 0th [ and hidden ] postulate of SR states that observers s and s'
> will ALWAYS agree on their relative velocity wrt each other.
> Mathematically stated ∆x'/∆t' == ∆x/∆t. The Lorentz Transforms affirm as
> much inasmuch as there is only a v in the Lorentz Transforms. The
> student is supposed to us only v when calculating t' & x' and when
> calculating t & x. There is no v' in the LTs
>
> It is the 0th postulate that Carlo and I contend is unproven. I go
> further. I show that assuming the 0th postulate leads to algebraic
> disaster. I have also painted a stunning word portrait, which features
> Dirk & Dono, demonstrating the same.
>
>
>>
>> Being able to manipulate symbols algebraically will still not allow you to
>> prove anything while you do not know what those symbols mean.
>>
>> Since you say that this observation makes no sense to you, this further
>> underscores the fact that you do not understand what you do not understand,
>> even on simple fronts.
>>> The work and its results are consummately valid in all respects.
>>>
>>> That you don't like those results is a matter of psychology. Not logic,
>>> algebra or physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 0th postulate is demonstrably false for all other values of ∆x/∆t and
>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' between 0 and c.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:00:17 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:15:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >>>>>> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> >>>>>>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> >>>>>>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> >>>>>>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> >>>>>>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> >>>>>>>> so that equations come out right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which “units of two frames”?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PointedEars
> >>>>>> The units of time and distance. Many accounts assume you choose them
> >>>>>> so that the speed of light turns out to be 1 but that just determines
> >>>>>> them up to a constant factor so they might be different in the two
> >>>>>> frames which would mean that the factor would have to occur in the
> >>>>>> Lorentz transformation also. My guess is that everything works out
> >>>>>> correctly if all observers chose the same number of vibrations of the
> >>>>>> cesium atom as the basic unit of time. However, I don't know how to
> >>>>>> prove that works or if it is necessary to add it to the ever growing
> >>>>>> list of unstated assumptions that underlie relativity theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me reveal an essential unstated assumption of the Lorentz Transforms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 0th postulate of Special Relativity: ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' must be true
> >>>>> between inertial frames for all relative velocities from 0 to c.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But as demonstrated earlier, this unstated postulate is only true when
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c [ the second postulate ] or when ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = 0
> >>>> Just in case it isn’t obvious to you, these quantities ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are
> >>>> coordinate differences between ANY TWO EVENTS as viewed in the two
> >>>> reference frames. ANY TWO EVENTS. That means many more pairs of events than
> >>>> those that are related by a traverse of speed v.
> >>>>
> >>>> You, though, apparently don’t know what those variables signify and have
> >>>> taken ∆x/∆t to be v just because you’ve seen that somewhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the kind of “logic” invoked by people like you who unfortunately
> >>>> don’t know enough about the subject to understand what the symbols refer
> >>>> to. This is the kind of “demonstration” that rightly gets called “not even
> >>>> wrong”.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pat, could you *try* to be a little less lazy in the thinking you put
> >>>> together before you post, please?
> >>>
> >>> You objection does not, nor ever has, made sense Bodkin. Deductive
> >>> reasoning is always performed in a manner and mode that derives the most
> >>> general results possible. I have strictly adhered to this logical
> >>> principle in all my work.
> >> No, you have not. You have repeatedly claimed that in the Lorentz
> >> transforms ∆x/∆t=v, which is a statement that is not only factually false
> >> but conveys a complete lack of understanding of what the symbols mean.
> >
> > Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make
> > it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate
> > system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing
> > coordinate system S' to be.
> That may be what YOU mean by it. But that has NO BEARING whatsoever to the
> coordinates x, x’, t, and t’ in the Lorentz transforms, which are in fact
> coordinates of EVENTS, not time-dependent coordinates of observers. And
> with those coordinates, ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are coordinate differences
> between PAIRS OF EVENTS, which are in fact arbitrary.
>
> When you conflate these two, that’s what goes into your “demonstration”,
> which demonstrates nothing other than that you don’t know what those
> variables denote.

Well, Bodkin my boy, there is an easy way to settle this. PROVE to Carlo and I that v == v in S' and in S. Or else admit that it is sine qua non assumption of the LTs.
>
> And the fact that you still consider it a “stunning” demonstration, without
> even COMPREHENDING that you have made a bonehead error, attests further to
> the inanity of you repeating it over and over and over again, so that at
> least 18 people can tell you that you’re being an idiot.
> > Reciprocally, ∆'x/∆t' is what observer s'...well, you understand the rest.
> >
> > The 0th [ and hidden ] postulate of SR states that observers s and s'
> > will ALWAYS agree on their relative velocity wrt each other.
> > Mathematically stated ∆x'/∆t' == ∆x/∆t. The Lorentz Transforms affirm as
> > much inasmuch as there is only a v in the Lorentz Transforms. The
> > student is supposed to us only v when calculating t' & x' and when
> > calculating t & x. There is no v' in the LTs
> >
> > It is the 0th postulate that Carlo and I contend is unproven. I go
> > further. I show that assuming the 0th postulate leads to algebraic
> > disaster. I have also painted a stunning word portrait, which features
> > Dirk & Dono, demonstrating the same.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Being able to manipulate symbols algebraically will still not allow you to
> >> prove anything while you do not know what those symbols mean.
> >>
> >> Since you say that this observation makes no sense to you, this further
> >> underscores the fact that you do not understand what you do not understand,
> >> even on simple fronts.
> >>> The work and its results are consummately valid in all respects.
> >>>
> >>> That you don't like those results is a matter of psychology. Not logic,
> >>> algebra or physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The 0th postulate is demonstrably false for all other values of ∆x/∆t and
> >>>>> ∆x'/∆t' between 0 and c.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:00:17 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:15:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>>>>>>> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
>>>>>>>>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
>>>>>>>>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
>>>>>>>>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
>>>>>>>>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
>>>>>>>>>> so that equations come out right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which “units of two frames”?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PointedEars
>>>>>>>> The units of time and distance. Many accounts assume you choose them
>>>>>>>> so that the speed of light turns out to be 1 but that just determines
>>>>>>>> them up to a constant factor so they might be different in the two
>>>>>>>> frames which would mean that the factor would have to occur in the
>>>>>>>> Lorentz transformation also. My guess is that everything works out
>>>>>>>> correctly if all observers chose the same number of vibrations of the
>>>>>>>> cesium atom as the basic unit of time. However, I don't know how to
>>>>>>>> prove that works or if it is necessary to add it to the ever growing
>>>>>>>> list of unstated assumptions that underlie relativity theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me reveal an essential unstated assumption of the Lorentz Transforms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 0th postulate of Special Relativity: ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' must be true
>>>>>>> between inertial frames for all relative velocities from 0 to c.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But as demonstrated earlier, this unstated postulate is only true when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c [ the second postulate ] or when ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = 0
>>>>>> Just in case it isn’t obvious to you, these quantities ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are
>>>>>> coordinate differences between ANY TWO EVENTS as viewed in the two
>>>>>> reference frames. ANY TWO EVENTS. That means many more pairs of events than
>>>>>> those that are related by a traverse of speed v.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You, though, apparently don’t know what those variables signify and have
>>>>>> taken ∆x/∆t to be v just because you’ve seen that somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the kind of “logic” invoked by people like you who unfortunately
>>>>>> don’t know enough about the subject to understand what the symbols refer
>>>>>> to. This is the kind of “demonstration” that rightly gets called “not even
>>>>>> wrong”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat, could you *try* to be a little less lazy in the thinking you put
>>>>>> together before you post, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> You objection does not, nor ever has, made sense Bodkin. Deductive
>>>>> reasoning is always performed in a manner and mode that derives the most
>>>>> general results possible. I have strictly adhered to this logical
>>>>> principle in all my work.
>>>> No, you have not. You have repeatedly claimed that in the Lorentz
>>>> transforms ∆x/∆t=v, which is a statement that is not only factually false
>>>> but conveys a complete lack of understanding of what the symbols mean.
>>>
>>> Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make
>>> it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate
>>> system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing
>>> coordinate system S' to be.
>> That may be what YOU mean by it. But that has NO BEARING whatsoever to the
>> coordinates x, x’, t, and t’ in the Lorentz transforms, which are in fact
>> coordinates of EVENTS, not time-dependent coordinates of observers. And
>> with those coordinates, ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are coordinate differences
>> between PAIRS OF EVENTS, which are in fact arbitrary.
>>
>> When you conflate these two, that’s what goes into your “demonstration”,
>> which demonstrates nothing other than that you don’t know what those
>> variables denote.
>
> Well, Bodkin my boy, there is an easy way to settle this. PROVE to Carlo
> and I that v == v in S' and in S. Or else admit that it is sine qua non
> assumption of the LTs.

I did this for you already, a few months ago.
In fact, I proved that if S’ moves at v relative to S, then S moves at -v
relative to S’ using the Lorentz transforms.

Unlike you, I do not feel the need to repeat myself 18 times for someone
who is not paying attention or who does not remember clearly what was said
even the day before because of a pounding hangover today. You are using a
medium that both archives and supports advanced searching. It’s a little
like reading a book, Pat. If you are on page 255 and forgot what was
explained on page 93, then you can turn back to page 93 rather than hoping
that the author is going to repeat it again for you on page 255.

If your response is, “Too much work, couldn’t be bothered, don’t care
anyway,” then of course this will define all your posts and greatly reduce
the interest in responding to you in any substantive way beyond gentle
mockery.

The FIRST thing you could do that would be constructive would be to say, if
to no one else but yourself, “OK, so I wasn’t getting the meaning of the
variables right. If they’re event coordinates, then what does this ‘event’
thing even mean?” That might inspire you to actually pick up a book like
Spacetime Physics and learn something.

Or possibly, “Too much work, couldn’t be bothered, don’t care anyway.”

Your choice.

>>
>> And the fact that you still consider it a “stunning” demonstration, without
>> even COMPREHENDING that you have made a bonehead error, attests further to
>> the inanity of you repeating it over and over and over again, so that at
>> least 18 people can tell you that you’re being an idiot.
>>> Reciprocally, ∆'x/∆t' is what observer s'...well, you understand the rest.
>>>
>>> The 0th [ and hidden ] postulate of SR states that observers s and s'
>>> will ALWAYS agree on their relative velocity wrt each other.
>>> Mathematically stated ∆x'/∆t' == ∆x/∆t. The Lorentz Transforms affirm as
>>> much inasmuch as there is only a v in the Lorentz Transforms. The
>>> student is supposed to us only v when calculating t' & x' and when
>>> calculating t & x. There is no v' in the LTs
>>>
>>> It is the 0th postulate that Carlo and I contend is unproven. I go
>>> further. I show that assuming the 0th postulate leads to algebraic
>>> disaster. I have also painted a stunning word portrait, which features
>>> Dirk & Dono, demonstrating the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Being able to manipulate symbols algebraically will still not allow you to
>>>> prove anything while you do not know what those symbols mean.
>>>>
>>>> Since you say that this observation makes no sense to you, this further
>>>> underscores the fact that you do not understand what you do not understand,
>>>> even on simple fronts.
>>>>> The work and its results are consummately valid in all respects.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you don't like those results is a matter of psychology. Not logic,
>>>>> algebra or physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 0th postulate is demonstrably false for all other values of ∆x/∆t and
>>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' between 0 and c.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:30:55 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:00:17 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:15:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >>>>>>>> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> >>>>>>>>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> >>>>>>>>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> >>>>>>>>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> >>>>>>>>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> >>>>>>>>>> so that equations come out right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which “units of two frames”?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> PointedEars
> >>>>>>>> The units of time and distance. Many accounts assume you choose them
> >>>>>>>> so that the speed of light turns out to be 1 but that just determines
> >>>>>>>> them up to a constant factor so they might be different in the two
> >>>>>>>> frames which would mean that the factor would have to occur in the
> >>>>>>>> Lorentz transformation also. My guess is that everything works out
> >>>>>>>> correctly if all observers chose the same number of vibrations of the
> >>>>>>>> cesium atom as the basic unit of time. However, I don't know how to
> >>>>>>>> prove that works or if it is necessary to add it to the ever growing
> >>>>>>>> list of unstated assumptions that underlie relativity theory.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let me reveal an essential unstated assumption of the Lorentz Transforms.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 0th postulate of Special Relativity: ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' must be true
> >>>>>>> between inertial frames for all relative velocities from 0 to c.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But as demonstrated earlier, this unstated postulate is only true when
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c [ the second postulate ] or when ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = 0
> >>>>>> Just in case it isn’t obvious to you, these quantities ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are
> >>>>>> coordinate differences between ANY TWO EVENTS as viewed in the two
> >>>>>> reference frames. ANY TWO EVENTS. That means many more pairs of events than
> >>>>>> those that are related by a traverse of speed v.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You, though, apparently don’t know what those variables signify and have
> >>>>>> taken ∆x/∆t to be v just because you’ve seen that somewhere.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is the kind of “logic” invoked by people like you who unfortunately
> >>>>>> don’t know enough about the subject to understand what the symbols refer
> >>>>>> to. This is the kind of “demonstration” that rightly gets called “not even
> >>>>>> wrong”.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pat, could you *try* to be a little less lazy in the thinking you put
> >>>>>> together before you post, please?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You objection does not, nor ever has, made sense Bodkin. Deductive
> >>>>> reasoning is always performed in a manner and mode that derives the most
> >>>>> general results possible. I have strictly adhered to this logical
> >>>>> principle in all my work.
> >>>> No, you have not. You have repeatedly claimed that in the Lorentz
> >>>> transforms ∆x/∆t=v, which is a statement that is not only factually false
> >>>> but conveys a complete lack of understanding of what the symbols mean.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make
> >>> it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate
> >>> system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing
> >>> coordinate system S' to be.
> >> That may be what YOU mean by it. But that has NO BEARING whatsoever to the
> >> coordinates x, x’, t, and t’ in the Lorentz transforms, which are in fact
> >> coordinates of EVENTS, not time-dependent coordinates of observers. And
> >> with those coordinates, ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are coordinate differences
> >> between PAIRS OF EVENTS, which are in fact arbitrary.
> >>
> >> When you conflate these two, that’s what goes into your “demonstration”,
> >> which demonstrates nothing other than that you don’t know what those
> >> variables denote.
> >
> > Well, Bodkin my boy, there is an easy way to settle this. PROVE to Carlo
> > and I that v == v in S' and in S. Or else admit that it is sine qua non
> > assumption of the LTs.
> I did this for you already, a few months ago.
> In fact, I proved that if S’ moves at v relative to S, then S moves at -v
> relative to S’ using the Lorentz transforms.

So what? You proved a third observer s' ' in S' ' finds that v = -v for s and s'. But that does not cut it in the LTs. You didn't even prove that.. A thorough search of this forum finds no well formed strings of algebra with v==v as the your final line. You just assumed it to be true [ although it is easily proved by s' ' in S' ' ].

On the other hand, I deductively and validly proved that s in S will always calculate that v == c for s' in S'. And I have the algebra--just a few posts north of this one.

Apologies to Ricardo for referring to him a few times as Carlo.
>
> Unlike you, I do not feel the need to repeat myself 18 times for someone
> who is not paying attention or who does not remember clearly what was said
> even the day before because of a pounding hangover today. You are using a
> medium that both archives and supports advanced searching. It’s a little
> like reading a book, Pat. If you are on page 255 and forgot what was
> explained on page 93, then you can turn back to page 93 rather than hoping
> that the author is going to repeat it again for you on page 255.
>
> If your response is, “Too much work, couldn’t be bothered, don’t care
> anyway,” then of course this will define all your posts and greatly reduce
> the interest in responding to you in any substantive way beyond gentle
> mockery.
>
> The FIRST thing you could do that would be constructive would be to say, if
> to no one else but yourself, “OK, so I wasn’t getting the meaning of the
> variables right. If they’re event coordinates, then what does this ‘event’
> thing even mean?” That might inspire you to actually pick up a book like
> Spacetime Physics and learn something.
>
> Or possibly, “Too much work, couldn’t be bothered, don’t care anyway.”
>
> Your choice.
> >>
> >> And the fact that you still consider it a “stunning” demonstration, without
> >> even COMPREHENDING that you have made a bonehead error, attests further to
> >> the inanity of you repeating it over and over and over again, so that at
> >> least 18 people can tell you that you’re being an idiot.
> >>> Reciprocally, ∆'x/∆t' is what observer s'...well, you understand the rest.
> >>>
> >>> The 0th [ and hidden ] postulate of SR states that observers s and s'
> >>> will ALWAYS agree on their relative velocity wrt each other.
> >>> Mathematically stated ∆x'/∆t' == ∆x/∆t. The Lorentz Transforms affirm as
> >>> much inasmuch as there is only a v in the Lorentz Transforms. The
> >>> student is supposed to us only v when calculating t' & x' and when
> >>> calculating t & x. There is no v' in the LTs
> >>>
> >>> It is the 0th postulate that Carlo and I contend is unproven. I go
> >>> further. I show that assuming the 0th postulate leads to algebraic
> >>> disaster. I have also painted a stunning word portrait, which features
> >>> Dirk & Dono, demonstrating the same.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Being able to manipulate symbols algebraically will still not allow you to
> >>>> prove anything while you do not know what those symbols mean.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you say that this observation makes no sense to you, this further
> >>>> underscores the fact that you do not understand what you do not understand,
> >>>> even on simple fronts.
> >>>>> The work and its results are consummately valid in all respects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That you don't like those results is a matter of psychology. Not logic,
> >>>>> algebra or physics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The 0th postulate is demonstrably false for all other values of ∆x/∆t and
> >>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' between 0 and c.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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 Friday, 15 April 2022 at 19:00:17 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:15:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >>>>>> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> >>>>>>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> >>>>>>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> >>>>>>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> >>>>>>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> >>>>>>>> so that equations come out right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which “units of two frames”?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PointedEars
> >>>>>> The units of time and distance. Many accounts assume you choose them
> >>>>>> so that the speed of light turns out to be 1 but that just determines
> >>>>>> them up to a constant factor so they might be different in the two
> >>>>>> frames which would mean that the factor would have to occur in the
> >>>>>> Lorentz transformation also. My guess is that everything works out
> >>>>>> correctly if all observers chose the same number of vibrations of the
> >>>>>> cesium atom as the basic unit of time. However, I don't know how to
> >>>>>> prove that works or if it is necessary to add it to the ever growing
> >>>>>> list of unstated assumptions that underlie relativity theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me reveal an essential unstated assumption of the Lorentz Transforms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 0th postulate of Special Relativity: ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' must be true
> >>>>> between inertial frames for all relative velocities from 0 to c.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But as demonstrated earlier, this unstated postulate is only true when
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c [ the second postulate ] or when ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = 0
> >>>> Just in case it isn’t obvious to you, these quantities ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are
> >>>> coordinate differences between ANY TWO EVENTS as viewed in the two
> >>>> reference frames. ANY TWO EVENTS. That means many more pairs of events than
> >>>> those that are related by a traverse of speed v.
> >>>>
> >>>> You, though, apparently don’t know what those variables signify and have
> >>>> taken ∆x/∆t to be v just because you’ve seen that somewhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the kind of “logic” invoked by people like you who unfortunately
> >>>> don’t know enough about the subject to understand what the symbols refer
> >>>> to. This is the kind of “demonstration” that rightly gets called “not even
> >>>> wrong”.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pat, could you *try* to be a little less lazy in the thinking you put
> >>>> together before you post, please?
> >>>
> >>> You objection does not, nor ever has, made sense Bodkin. Deductive
> >>> reasoning is always performed in a manner and mode that derives the most
> >>> general results possible. I have strictly adhered to this logical
> >>> principle in all my work.
> >> No, you have not. You have repeatedly claimed that in the Lorentz
> >> transforms ∆x/∆t=v, which is a statement that is not only factually false
> >> but conveys a complete lack of understanding of what the symbols mean.
> >
> > Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make
> > it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate
> > system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing
> > coordinate system S' to be.
> That may be what YOU mean by it. But that has NO BEARING whatsoever to the
> coordinates x, x’, t, and t’ in the Lorentz transforms, which are in fact
> coordinates of EVENTS, not time-dependent coordinates of observers. And
> with those coordinates, ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are coordinate differences
> between PAIRS OF EVENTS, which are in fact arbitrary.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your idiotic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:30:55 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:00:17 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:35:29 AM UTC-7, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:15:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>>>>>>>>> <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
>>>>>>>>>>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
>>>>>>>>>>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
>>>>>>>>>>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
>>>>>>>>>>>> so that equations come out right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which “units of two frames”?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PointedEars
>>>>>>>>>> The units of time and distance. Many accounts assume you choose them
>>>>>>>>>> so that the speed of light turns out to be 1 but that just determines
>>>>>>>>>> them up to a constant factor so they might be different in the two
>>>>>>>>>> frames which would mean that the factor would have to occur in the
>>>>>>>>>> Lorentz transformation also. My guess is that everything works out
>>>>>>>>>> correctly if all observers chose the same number of vibrations of the
>>>>>>>>>> cesium atom as the basic unit of time. However, I don't know how to
>>>>>>>>>> prove that works or if it is necessary to add it to the ever growing
>>>>>>>>>> list of unstated assumptions that underlie relativity theory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let me reveal an essential unstated assumption of the Lorentz Transforms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 0th postulate of Special Relativity: ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' must be true
>>>>>>>>> between inertial frames for all relative velocities from 0 to c.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But as demonstrated earlier, this unstated postulate is only true when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c [ the second postulate ] or when ∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = 0
>>>>>>>> Just in case it isn’t obvious to you, these quantities ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are
>>>>>>>> coordinate differences between ANY TWO EVENTS as viewed in the two
>>>>>>>> reference frames. ANY TWO EVENTS. That means many more pairs of events than
>>>>>>>> those that are related by a traverse of speed v.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You, though, apparently don’t know what those variables signify and have
>>>>>>>> taken ∆x/∆t to be v just because you’ve seen that somewhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the kind of “logic” invoked by people like you who unfortunately
>>>>>>>> don’t know enough about the subject to understand what the symbols refer
>>>>>>>> to. This is the kind of “demonstration” that rightly gets called “not even
>>>>>>>> wrong”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pat, could you *try* to be a little less lazy in the thinking you put
>>>>>>>> together before you post, please?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You objection does not, nor ever has, made sense Bodkin. Deductive
>>>>>>> reasoning is always performed in a manner and mode that derives the most
>>>>>>> general results possible. I have strictly adhered to this logical
>>>>>>> principle in all my work.
>>>>>> No, you have not. You have repeatedly claimed that in the Lorentz
>>>>>> transforms ∆x/∆t=v, which is a statement that is not only factually false
>>>>>> but conveys a complete lack of understanding of what the symbols mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone of minimum competence knows what I am typing about. But to make
>>>>> it explicit, ∆x/∆t is what observer s at rest in his co-moving coordinate
>>>>> system S measures the velocity of observer s' at rest in her co-mvoing
>>>>> coordinate system S' to be.
>>>> That may be what YOU mean by it. But that has NO BEARING whatsoever to the
>>>> coordinates x, x’, t, and t’ in the Lorentz transforms, which are in fact
>>>> coordinates of EVENTS, not time-dependent coordinates of observers. And
>>>> with those coordinates, ∆x, ∆t, ∆x', ∆t' are coordinate differences
>>>> between PAIRS OF EVENTS, which are in fact arbitrary.
>>>>
>>>> When you conflate these two, that’s what goes into your “demonstration”,
>>>> which demonstrates nothing other than that you don’t know what those
>>>> variables denote.
>>>
>>> Well, Bodkin my boy, there is an easy way to settle this. PROVE to Carlo
>>> and I that v == v in S' and in S. Or else admit that it is sine qua non
>>> assumption of the LTs.
>> I did this for you already, a few months ago.
>> In fact, I proved that if S’ moves at v relative to S, then S moves at -v
>> relative to S’ using the Lorentz transforms.
>
> So what? You proved a third observer s' ' in S' ' finds that v = -v for
> s and s'. But that does not cut it in the LTs.

Yes, it does, because that’s what v and v’ denote — the relative motion of
one reference frame with respect to the other.

> You didn't even prove that. A thorough search of this forum finds no
> well formed strings of algebra with v==v as the your final line.

That’s because I did not conclude with that statement, nor did I have to.
And I showed that it works for any value of v between 0 and c, which is
counter to your statement in this thread.

> You just assumed it to be true [ although it is easily proved by s' ' in S' ' ].
>
> On the other hand, I deductively and validly proved that s in S will
> always calculate that v == c for s' in S'. And I have the algebra--just
> a few posts north of this one.
>
> Apologies to Ricardo for referring to him a few times as Carlo.
>>
>> Unlike you, I do not feel the need to repeat myself 18 times for someone
>> who is not paying attention or who does not remember clearly what was said
>> even the day before because of a pounding hangover today. You are using a
>> medium that both archives and supports advanced searching. It’s a little
>> like reading a book, Pat. If you are on page 255 and forgot what was
>> explained on page 93, then you can turn back to page 93 rather than hoping
>> that the author is going to repeat it again for you on page 255.
>>
>> If your response is, “Too much work, couldn’t be bothered, don’t care
>> anyway,” then of course this will define all your posts and greatly reduce
>> the interest in responding to you in any substantive way beyond gentle
>> mockery.
>>
>> The FIRST thing you could do that would be constructive would be to say, if
>> to no one else but yourself, “OK, so I wasn’t getting the meaning of the
>> variables right. If they’re event coordinates, then what does this ‘event’
>> thing even mean?” That might inspire you to actually pick up a book like
>> Spacetime Physics and learn something.
>>
>> Or possibly, “Too much work, couldn’t be bothered, don’t care anyway.”
>>
>> Your choice.
>>>>
>>>> And the fact that you still consider it a “stunning” demonstration, without
>>>> even COMPREHENDING that you have made a bonehead error, attests further to
>>>> the inanity of you repeating it over and over and over again, so that at
>>>> least 18 people can tell you that you’re being an idiot.
>>>>> Reciprocally, ∆'x/∆t' is what observer s'...well, you understand the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 0th [ and hidden ] postulate of SR states that observers s and s'
>>>>> will ALWAYS agree on their relative velocity wrt each other.
>>>>> Mathematically stated ∆x'/∆t' == ∆x/∆t. The Lorentz Transforms affirm as
>>>>> much inasmuch as there is only a v in the Lorentz Transforms. The
>>>>> student is supposed to us only v when calculating t' & x' and when
>>>>> calculating t & x. There is no v' in the LTs
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the 0th postulate that Carlo and I contend is unproven. I go
>>>>> further. I show that assuming the 0th postulate leads to algebraic
>>>>> disaster. I have also painted a stunning word portrait, which features
>>>>> Dirk & Dono, demonstrating the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being able to manipulate symbols algebraically will still not allow you to
>>>>>> prove anything while you do not know what those symbols mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you say that this observation makes no sense to you, this further
>>>>>> underscores the fact that you do not understand what you do not understand,
>>>>>> even on simple fronts.
>>>>>>> The work and its results are consummately valid in all respects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you don't like those results is a matter of psychology. Not logic,
>>>>>>> algebra or physics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 0th postulate is demonstrably false for all other values of ∆x/∆t and
>>>>>>>>> ∆x'/∆t' between 0 and c.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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
>

Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> so that equations come out right.

The short answer is that units are irrelevant.
No physical result can depend on any particular choice of units.
If we ever meet those LGM we can communicate some measurement results
to find out what conversion factors apply.
Just say to them: A socond of our time is ... vibrations
of such and such transition, and they will know.

More generally speaking, you could enlarge the Poincare group
by including all scale transformations with it.
(but nothing would be gained by this)

Jan

On Friday, 15 April 2022 at 23:06:28 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ricardo Jimenez <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> > seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> > being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> > results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> > to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> > so that equations come out right.
> The short answer is that units are irrelevant.
> No physical result can depend on any particular choice of units.
> If we ever meet those LGM we can communicate some measurement results
> to find out what conversion factors apply.
> Just say to them: A socond of our time is ... vibrations
> of such and such transition, and they will know.
>
> More generally speaking, you could enlarge the Poincare group
> by including all scale transformations with it.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your insane religion TAI and GPS will keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On 2022-04-15 00:13:02 +0000, Ricardo Jimenez said:

> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> so that equations come out right.

If the observers of one frame cannot observe what the observers of the
other frame are doing it does not matter.

If they can, they can observe what units the others are using and
determine the conversions.

Mikko

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:01:58 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-04-15 00:13:02 +0000, Ricardo Jimenez said:
>
> > The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> > seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> > being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
> > results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
> > to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
> > so that equations come out right.
> If the observers of one frame cannot observe what the observers of the
> other frame are doing it does not matter.
>
> If they can, they can observe what units the others are using and
> determine the conversions.
Exactly, Mikko.

If Bodkin is approaching me at .867c then I observe that the meters in his co-moving coordinate frame are only half the length of the meters in mine. His clock is ticking at only half the rate of my clock. I will validly calculate that Bodkin will experience traveling twice as many meters as I do in only half the amount of time. I will validly calculate that Bodkin's coordinate velocity v' towards me is 3.47c. While I will validly calculate that my velocity towards him is .867c.

v != v'

The Lorentz Transforms with it's single v is incorrect at the most profound level. Just as it's namesake always suspected.
>
> Mikko

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:01:58 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-04-15 00:13:02 +0000, Ricardo Jimenez said:
>>
>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
>>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
>>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
>>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
>>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
>>> so that equations come out right.
>> If the observers of one frame cannot observe what the observers of the
>> other frame are doing it does not matter.
>>
>> If they can, they can observe what units the others are using and
>> determine the conversions.
> Exactly, Mikko.
>
> If Bodkin is approaching me at .867c then I observe that the meters in
> his co-moving coordinate frame are only half the length of the meters in
> mine. His clock is ticking at only half the rate of my clock. I will
> validly calculate that Bodkin will experience traveling twice as many
> meters as I do in only half the amount of time. I will validly
> calculate that Bodkin's coordinate velocity v' towards me is 3.47c.
> While I will validly calculate that my velocity towards him is .867c.

I think you don’t understand how to do those calculations. The fact that
you call a result of 3.47c a “valid” result is just false machismo. If you
did a fourth grade long division of 83 divided by 22 and you get 426.2, I’m
confident you would claim that you have broken long division.

>
> v != v'
>
> The Lorentz Transforms with it's single v is incorrect at the most
> profound level. Just as it's namesake always suspected.
>>
>> Mikko
>

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

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 7:25:58 AM UTC-7, cretin pat dolan repeated his imbecility:
> I will validly calculate that Bodkin's coordinate velocity v' towards me is 3.47c

Can't fix cretin

On 4/14/22 7:13 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> being compared have compatible time and space units [...]

This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct consequence of
Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's proper tick rate is
independent of its rest frame, and b) a ruler's proper length is also
independent of its rest frame. That is, the (local) laws of physics that
determine such things are the same when referenced to any inertial frame.

[Here 'proper' means 'measured in its rest frame'.]

> But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how to compare the units of
> two frames in relative motion with each other so that equations come
> out right.

The equations of SR, basically the Lorentz transforms, were derived
using the same units in all frames. The tremendous experimental success
of SR directly implies that the above discussion accurately corresponds
to the world we inhabit.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/14/22 7:13 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> > The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> > seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> > being compared have compatible time and space units [...]
>
> This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct consequence of
> Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's proper tick rate is
> independent of its rest frame, and b) a ruler's proper length is also
> independent of its rest frame. That is, the (local) laws of physics that
> determine such things are the same when referenced to any inertial frame.
>
> [Here 'proper' means 'measured in its rest frame'.]
> > But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how to compare the units of
> > two frames in relative motion with each other so that equations come
> > out right.
> The equations of SR, basically the Lorentz transforms, were derived
> using the same units in all frames. The tremendous experimental success
> of SR directly implies that the above discussion accurately corresponds
> to the world we inhabit.
>
> Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts have you never considered the scandal of the Frisch-Smith muons? What is still billed as SR's greatest confirmation turns out to be its greatest falsification.

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/14/22 7:13 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> > The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
> > seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
> > being compared have compatible time and space units [...]
>
> This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct consequence of
> Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's proper tick rate is
> independent of its rest frame, and b) a ruler's proper length is also
> independent of its rest frame. That is, the (local) laws of physics that
> determine such things are the same when referenced to any inertial frame.
>
> [Here 'proper' means 'measured in its rest frame'.]
> > But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how to compare the units of
> > two frames in relative motion with each other so that equations come
> > out right.
> The equations of SR, basically the Lorentz transforms, were derived
> using the same units in all frames. The tremendous experimental success
> of SR directly implies that the above discussion accurately corresponds
> to the world we inhabit.
>
> Tom Roberts
And your reason is circular again, Tom Roberts. You unashamedly use the first postulate to justify the second. You use relativity to prove relativity. This is exactly what Ricardo called you on in your first interaction with him.

On 4/16/2022 12:59 PM, patdolan wrote:

> Tom Roberts have you never considered the scandal of the Frisch-Smith muons? What is still billed as SR's greatest confirmation turns out to be its greatest falsification.

OK, I'll bite. What is this "scandal" you speak of? And how else do you
explain an excess of muons (compared to Newtonian predictions) reaching
sea level?

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:50:50 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 12:59 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > Tom Roberts have you never considered the scandal of the Frisch-Smith muons? What is still billed as SR's greatest confirmation turns out to be its greatest falsification.
> OK, I'll bite. What is this "scandal" you speak of? And how else do you
> explain an excess of muons (compared to Newtonian predictions) reaching
> sea level?

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/e8IwdwuEUR4/m/izdKmh16AQAJ

On April 15, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > The Lorentz transformation and other results of special relativity
>> seem to have the built in assumption that the two systems that are
>> being compared have compatible time and space units, otherwise the
>> results are nonsense. But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how
>> to compare the units of two frames in relative motion with each other
>> so that equations come out right.
>
> No physical result can depend on any particular choice of units.
> If we ever meet those LGM we can communicate some measurement results
> to find out what conversion factors apply.
> Just say to them: A socond of our time is ... vibrations
> of such and such transition, and they will know.

Sure.
If earthlings and Romulans want to communicate
experimental tests of relativity, both parties reference the
lowest line Na line for common length and time standard.

However, that's circular: it assumes relativity as given;
how do they know Na is Na everywhere? How do they
verify that Einstein's first postulate holds?

It looks undecidable to me.

Let's say two spaceships pass, each with large picture windows,
cameras, and whatever instruments. They want to verify the
Lorentz time dilation and velocity transformation formulas, but
no common time/distance units. Is that doable?

--
Rich

On 4/16/2022 3:18 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:50:50 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 12:59 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Roberts have you never considered the scandal of the Frisch-Smith muons? What is still billed as SR's greatest confirmation turns out to be its greatest falsification.
>> OK, I'll bite. What is this "scandal" you speak of? And how else do you
>> explain an excess of muons (compared to Newtonian predictions) reaching
>> sea level?
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/e8IwdwuEUR4/m/izdKmh16AQAJ

Oh that thread, where you couldn't keep the reference frames straight.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:50:50 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 12:59 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Roberts have you never considered the scandal of the Frisch-Smith
>>> muons? What is still billed as SR's greatest confirmation turns out to
>>> be its greatest falsification.
>> OK, I'll bite. What is this "scandal" you speak of? And how else do you
>> explain an excess of muons (compared to Newtonian predictions) reaching
>> sea level?
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/e8IwdwuEUR4/m/izdKmh16AQAJ
>

And you were answered in that thread. Why do you need to have it answered
18 times?

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

On 4/16/22 12:01 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/14/22 7:13 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>> The Lorentz transformation and other results of special
>>> relativity seem to have the built in assumption that the two
>>> systems that are being compared have compatible time and space
>>> units [...]
>>
>> This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct consequence
>> of Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's proper tick rate is
>> independent of its rest frame, and b) a ruler's proper length is
>> also independent of its rest frame. That is, the (local) laws of
>> physics that determine such things are the same when referenced to
>> any inertial frame.
>>
>> [Here 'proper' means 'measured in its rest frame'.]
>>> But I can't recall seeing a discussion of how to compare the
>>> units of two frames in relative motion with each other so that
>>> equations come out right.
>> The equations of SR, basically the Lorentz transforms, were derived
>> using the same units in all frames. The tremendous experimental
>> success of SR directly implies that the above discussion accurately
>> corresponds to the world we inhabit.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> And your reason is circular again, Tom Roberts.

No, it isn't "circular" -- you REALLY need to learn how to read. I am
explaining the internal structure of SR, and how Ricardo's supposed
assumption is already contained in Einstein's first postulate of SR.

> You unashamedly use the first postulate to justify the second.

Again, you REALLY need to learn how to read. Nowhere do I even mention
the second postulate. Stop attributing your personal fantasies to me.

> You use relativity to prove relativity.

Nope. Again, you REALLY need to learn how to read. I make no attempt to
"prove" relativity, as proof is simply not possible for physical
theories. The justification I use to conclude that the above discussion
corresponds to the world we inhabit is "The tremendous experimental
success of SR", which is not "circular" at all. Stop attributing your
personal fantasies to me.

Tom Roberts

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:11:35 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>> This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct consequence
>>> of Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's proper tick rate is
>>> independent of its rest frame, and b) a ruler's proper length is
>>> also independent of its rest frame. That is, the (local) laws of
>>> physics that determine such things are the same when referenced to
>>> any inertial frame.

My guess is that what you are saying is that the first Einstein
postulate says that if two inertial observers send a light pulse to
each other at each tick of their respective rest clocks, the
multiplicative Doppler factor determined by both will be the same. To
make that true, I think you have to add that each rest clock is set to
tick at at a rate equal to the same number of vibrations of Cesium
atoms.

On 4/19/22 8:00 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:11:35 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>>> This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct
>>>> consequence of Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's
>>>> proper tick rate is independent of its rest frame, and b) a
>>>> ruler's proper length is also independent of its rest frame.
>>>> That is, the (local) laws of physics that determine such things
>>>> are the same when referenced to any inertial frame.
>
> My guess is that what you are saying is that the first Einstein
> postulate says that if two inertial observers send a light pulse to
> each other at each tick of their respective rest clocks, the
> multiplicative Doppler factor determined by both will be the same.
> To make that true, I think you have to add that each rest clock is
> set to tick at at a rate equal to the same number of vibrations of
> Cesium atoms.

[Hmmm. Your last sentence is unneeded, because the second
is defined in terms of Cs-133 oscillations, and clock ticks
are denoted in seconds.]

You should READ what I wrote, and ask about parts you don't understand,
rather than trying to guess. For instance, I said nothing at all about
Doppler for light pulses sent between frames -- I have no idea where you
got that or why you think it is relevant.

What I said (with context):
a) the first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are
the same when referenced to any inertial frame
b) so in SR, all units defined in terms of physical constants
or processes are the same when referenced to any inertial
frame, because the physical laws that determine them are the
same
c) I gave examples of (b) for time and length, but (b) actually
applies to all units that we use

Tom Roberts