On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> >
> > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
>
> I do not dispute it.

Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.

> Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.

That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.

> ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?

Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.

> Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?

No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.

> A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> the same as yours.

That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.

Sylvia Else wrote:
> As has been repeatedly pointed out, length contraction and time dilation
> are a consequence of projections from one coordinate system to another.

You're just describing passive transformations, which, by themselves, don't represent Lorentz invariance. To understand relativistic effects it is essential to distinguish between passive and active transformations, and of course to include the relativity of simultaneity.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 07:20:37 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24-May-22 2:55 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:26:19 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 24-May-22 2:12 am, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 12:18:43 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 23-May-22 12:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Velocity Uniqueness Theorem: It is a fundamental quality of
> >>>>> motion that there can exist at most one instantaneous
> >>>>> velocity magnitude ||v|| shared between any pair of
> >>>>> observers.
> >>>> If that's a theorem, where's the proof?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>> This is a most excellent point that you make, Sylvia Jones. The
> >>> velocity uniqueness theorem may in fact have to be elevated to
> >>> postulate level. But whether theorem or postulate, one thing is
> >>> certain: given the validity of the LTs and SR, the velocity
> >>> uniqueness theorem is certainly wrong. I will prove it directly.
> >>>
> >>> Two observers, Stan and Townes. Using his co-moving coordinate
> >>> system Stan determines that Townes is one light year away and
> >>> traveling at .867c in his direction. Stan now calculates what
> >>> Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving
> >>> coordinate system.
> >>>
> >>> Stan immediately perceives that Townes' co-moving coordinate
> >>> system is contracted by a factor of two and that Towne's clock is
> >>> ticking at half the rate of his own clock. These phenomena are
> >>> not some sort of illusion. In Stan's FoR Townes really does
> >>> measure that he moves two meters towards Stan for every one meter
> >>> that Stan moves towards Townes. Furthermore, Stan measures that
> >>> Townes' clock ticks off only half as much time as his own during
> >>> the simultaneous distance intervals in the preceding sentence.
> >>> When Stan and Townes pass one another, Stan watches Townes' hand
> >>> moving at half speed as he writes down two light years distance
> >>> divided by 0.5767 years to calculate Stan's velocity as 3.468c.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, Townes will measure another velocity for Stan in his own
> >>> FoR. But we are watching from Stan and Townes calculate velocity
> >>> from Stan's FoR. [this also implies that SR is a "Many Worlds"
> >>> theory.]
> >>>
> >>> What has been accomplished: We have demonstrated that given the
> >>> LTs and SR, the velocity two observers share between themselves
> >>> can never be unique.
> >>>
> >>> There is more to spin out but the author pauses here for his
> >>> mathematical inferiors to catch the drift of his thought before
> >>> proceeding.
> >>>
> >> If you misapply SR, which you are, then you'll reach wrong
> >> conclusions, which you also are.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Sylvia, it comes down to this: are length contraction and time
> > dilation real? Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all
> > functioning at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and
> > ruler are half the length of yours simply can never accept that the
> > velocity you assign him is the same as yours.
> >
> As has been repeatedly pointed out, length contraction and time dilation
> are a consequence of projections from one coordinate system to another.

Sure, there is nothing real there.

> The real test of SR is whether its use results in the correct
> predictions of what can be measured, and it does.

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

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:20:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24-May-22 2:55 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:26:19 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 24-May-22 2:12 am, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 12:18:43 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 23-May-22 12:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Velocity Uniqueness Theorem: It is a fundamental quality of
> >>>>> motion that there can exist at most one instantaneous
> >>>>> velocity magnitude ||v|| shared between any pair of
> >>>>> observers.
> >>>> If that's a theorem, where's the proof?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>> This is a most excellent point that you make, Sylvia Jones. The
> >>> velocity uniqueness theorem may in fact have to be elevated to
> >>> postulate level. But whether theorem or postulate, one thing is
> >>> certain: given the validity of the LTs and SR, the velocity
> >>> uniqueness theorem is certainly wrong. I will prove it directly.
> >>>
> >>> Two observers, Stan and Townes. Using his co-moving coordinate
> >>> system Stan determines that Townes is one light year away and
> >>> traveling at .867c in his direction. Stan now calculates what
> >>> Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving
> >>> coordinate system.
> >>>
> >>> Stan immediately perceives that Townes' co-moving coordinate
> >>> system is contracted by a factor of two and that Towne's clock is
> >>> ticking at half the rate of his own clock. These phenomena are
> >>> not some sort of illusion. In Stan's FoR Townes really does
> >>> measure that he moves two meters towards Stan for every one meter
> >>> that Stan moves towards Townes. Furthermore, Stan measures that
> >>> Townes' clock ticks off only half as much time as his own during
> >>> the simultaneous distance intervals in the preceding sentence.
> >>> When Stan and Townes pass one another, Stan watches Townes' hand
> >>> moving at half speed as he writes down two light years distance
> >>> divided by 0.5767 years to calculate Stan's velocity as 3.468c.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, Townes will measure another velocity for Stan in his own
> >>> FoR. But we are watching from Stan and Townes calculate velocity
> >>> from Stan's FoR. [this also implies that SR is a "Many Worlds"
> >>> theory.]
> >>>
> >>> What has been accomplished: We have demonstrated that given the
> >>> LTs and SR, the velocity two observers share between themselves
> >>> can never be unique.
> >>>
> >>> There is more to spin out but the author pauses here for his
> >>> mathematical inferiors to catch the drift of his thought before
> >>> proceeding.
> >>>
> >> If you misapply SR, which you are, then you'll reach wrong
> >> conclusions, which you also are.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Sylvia, it comes down to this: are length contraction and time
> > dilation real? Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all
> > functioning at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and
> > ruler are half the length of yours simply can never accept that the
> > velocity you assign him is the same as yours.
> >
> As has been repeatedly pointed out, length contraction and time dilation
> are a consequence of projections from one coordinate system to another.
> They are special cases of the Lorentz transform, and people frequently
> try to use them inappropriately in arguments, and reach mistaken
> conclusions thereby. Whether or not they are real depends very much on
> your precise definition of "real", and is a question for philosophy.
>
> In your scenario, each person will use their own clocks and metre rules
> to determine the relative velocity, and they will both reach the same
> conclusion.
>
> The real test of SR is whether its use results in the correct
> predictions of what can be measured, and it does.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia,

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that straight up relativity can lead to very false results in flat spacetime:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate

https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf

These two [ soon to be historic ] documents stand as testimony to the falsification of special relativity in flat spacetime.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> > >
> > > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> >
> > I do not dispute it.
> Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
>
> > Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
>
> That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
>
> > ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
>
> Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> > Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.
> > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> > at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> > length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> > the same as yours.
> That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.

Without demonstration you are just composing encomiums to relativity. Use the relativity of simultaneity to rescue the situation Stownes. I dare you.. It's too damned convoluted for you to do so. I dare you to prove your cheap talk.

Stan Fultoni, please do not acknowledge this sentence if you are now, or ever have been Townes Olson.

> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > As has been repeatedly pointed out, length contraction and time dilation
> > are a consequence of projections from one coordinate system to another.
> You're just describing passive transformations, which, by themselves, don't represent Lorentz invariance. To understand relativistic effects it is essential to distinguish between passive and active transformations, and of course to include the relativity of simultaneity.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:02:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> > > >
> > > > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> > >
> > > I do not dispute it.
> > Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
> >
> > > Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
> >
> > That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
> >
> > > ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
> >
> > Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> > > Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> > No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.
> > > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> > > at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> > > length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> > > the same as yours.
> > That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.
>
> Without demonstration...

That's a lie. This has all been demonstrated to you quite explicitly and thoroughly. Yet again, the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. What part of this do you dispute?

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 08:39:04 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:

> That's a lie. This has all been demonstrated to you quite explicitly and thoroughly. Yet again, the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.

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

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> On 24-May-22 2:55 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:26:19 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 24-May-22 2:12 am, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 12:18:43 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 23-May-22 12:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Velocity Uniqueness Theorem: It is a fundamental quality of
> >>>>> motion that there can exist at most one instantaneous
> >>>>> velocity magnitude ||v|| shared between any pair of
> >>>>> observers.
> >>>> If that's a theorem, where's the proof?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>> This is a most excellent point that you make, Sylvia Jones. The
> >>> velocity uniqueness theorem may in fact have to be elevated to
> >>> postulate level. But whether theorem or postulate, one thing is
> >>> certain: given the validity of the LTs and SR, the velocity
> >>> uniqueness theorem is certainly wrong. I will prove it directly.
> >>>
> >>> Two observers, Stan and Townes. Using his co-moving coordinate
> >>> system Stan determines that Townes is one light year away and
> >>> traveling at .867c in his direction. Stan now calculates what
> >>> Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving
> >>> coordinate system.
> >>>
> >>> Stan immediately perceives that Townes' co-moving coordinate
> >>> system is contracted by a factor of two and that Towne's clock is
> >>> ticking at half the rate of his own clock. These phenomena are
> >>> not some sort of illusion. In Stan's FoR Townes really does
> >>> measure that he moves two meters towards Stan for every one meter
> >>> that Stan moves towards Townes. Furthermore, Stan measures that
> >>> Townes' clock ticks off only half as much time as his own during
> >>> the simultaneous distance intervals in the preceding sentence.
> >>> When Stan and Townes pass one another, Stan watches Townes' hand
> >>> moving at half speed as he writes down two light years distance
> >>> divided by 0.5767 years to calculate Stan's velocity as 3.468c.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, Townes will measure another velocity for Stan in his own
> >>> FoR. But we are watching from Stan and Townes calculate velocity
> >>> from Stan's FoR. [this also implies that SR is a "Many Worlds"
> >>> theory.]
> >>>
> >>> What has been accomplished: We have demonstrated that given the
> >>> LTs and SR, the velocity two observers share between themselves
> >>> can never be unique.
> >>>
> >>> There is more to spin out but the author pauses here for his
> >>> mathematical inferiors to catch the drift of his thought before
> >>> proceeding.
> >>>
> >> If you misapply SR, which you are, then you'll reach wrong
> >> conclusions, which you also are.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Sylvia, it comes down to this: are length contraction and time
> > dilation real? Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all
> > functioning at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and
> > ruler are half the length of yours simply can never accept that the
> > velocity you assign him is the same as yours.
> >
>
> As has been repeatedly pointed out, length contraction and time dilation
> are a consequence of projections from one coordinate system to another.

Yes, they are coordinate effects, not real ones.
Lorentz contraction is not a physical change to the bar.

> They are special cases of the Lorentz transform, and people frequently
> try to use them inappropriately in arguments, and reach mistaken
> conclusions thereby. Whether or not they are real depends very much on
> your precise definition of "real", and is a question for philosophy.

In the olden days, before 1905, Lorentz and others
thought that Lorentz contraction was a real physical effect.
This was based on the Lorentz aether theory
combined with the Lorentz theory of electrons.

People tried to search for physical consequences of Lorentz contraction
that could be tested.
For example: would a glass bar become bi-refringent
by being Lorentz-contracted by moving through the aether?

Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.

Jan

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.

Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
>
> Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.

Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.
(but it takes an Einstein to see it)

But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,

Jan

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:35:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
> >
> > Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.

And forbidden by your idiotic religion TAI and GPS
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

> But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,

Easy one - GPS clocks are corrected for it.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:40:42 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote:

> Are you kidding? No one ever understands you Townes.

A lie on your part. I, as any other smart person, understands him.
Then again, you are here just trolling.

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same to each of your posts.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:35:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > > > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
> > >
> > > Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> > Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.
>
> And forbidden by your idiotic religion TAI and GPS
> keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> always did.
>
> > But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,
>
> Easy one - GPS clocks are corrected for it.

That's a new one. Please explain,

Jan

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 15:38:44 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:35:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > > > > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
> > > >
> > > > Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> > > Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.
> >
> > And forbidden by your idiotic religion TAI and GPS
> > keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> > always did.
> >
> > > But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,
> >
> > Easy one - GPS clocks are corrected for it.
> That's a new one. Please explain,

Simple - the model applied in GPS is not made by your bunch
of religious maniacs. It's not assuming your Holiest Postulate,
it's assuming special/ether frame (ECI), and that the
clocks moving in it are to be corrected. Nothing for your tiny
fanatic halfbrain, I'm afraid.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:39:04 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:02:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> > > >
> > > > I do not dispute it.
> > > Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
> > >
> > > > Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
> > >
> > > That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
> > >
> > > > ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
> > >
> > > Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> > > > Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> > > No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.
> > > > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> > > > at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> > > > length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> > > > the same as yours.
> > > That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.
> >
> > Without demonstration...
>
> That's a lie. This has all been demonstrated to you quite explicitly and thoroughly. Yet again, the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. What part of this do you dispute?

I dispute all of it. Stownes, I filled your schema with numbers and wiped it out. Two observers closing in on each other will not agree on the speed at which they are closing. I posit my many calculations using the Lorentz Transforms, as my proof.

Furthermore, I offer as proof the example that has silenced Sylvia and was confirmed by Professor Paul A. Anderson.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> > x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of
> > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. What part
> > of this do you dispute?
>
> I dispute all of it.

So, you dispute that "the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g". You just need to go back to grade school and learn about a subject called algebra. You will learn that the quoted statement is correct.

> Two observers closing in on each other will not agree on the speed at which they
> are closing.

That is untrue, and this has been thoroughly explained to you. Without being able to take the algebraic inverse of a simple pair of linear equations, you seem to be out of your depth here. Again, objects at rest in S' have velocity dx/dt = v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity dx'/dt' = -v in terms of S'. You can verify this yourself from the above relations - once you successfully pass 4th grade algebra and learn how to do that.

> I posit my many calculations using the Lorentz Transforms, as my proof.

You should also take 4th grade English and learn the meanings of words like "posit". Also, remember that all of your attempted "calculations" have been shown to be completely fallacious nonsense.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> > > x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of
> > > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. What part
> > > of this do you dispute?
> >
> > I dispute all of it.
> So, you dispute that "the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g". You just need to go back to grade school and learn about a subject called algebra. You will learn that the quoted statement is correct.
> > Two observers closing in on each other will not agree on the speed at which they
> > are closing.
> That is untrue, and this has been thoroughly explained to you. Without being able to take the algebraic inverse of a simple pair of linear equations, you seem to be out of your depth here. Again, objects at rest in S' have velocity dx/dt = v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity dx'/dt' = -v in terms of S'. You can verify this yourself from the above relations - once you successfully pass 4th grade algebra and learn how to do that.
> > I posit my many calculations using the Lorentz Transforms, as my proof.
> You should also take 4th grade English and learn the meanings of words like "posit". Also, remember that all of your attempted "calculations" have been shown to be completely fallacious nonsense.

You keep repeating the same sentences containing the same algebraic schema, used in the same old ways which you have been shown can be used in new ways to undo the consistency of relativity. But you refuse to believe the in fully logical exposition of these new ways.

You want this forum to believe your long paragraphs. But how can you ask this forum to believe a lengthy Stan Fultoni paragraph when we can't even bring ourselves to believe your name?

Stan Fultoni, are you now, or have you ever been Townes Olson????

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:43:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> You keep repeating the same sentences...

It's really just one sentence: The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.

You've said you dispute every part of this, which means you dipute the fact that the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g. But this is just grade school algebra, which any mentally competent adult can verify for themselves. Therefore, your beliefs are wrong, right?

> you have been shown can be used in new ways to undo the consistency of relativity.

To the contrary, your silly pronouncements have been thoroughly debunked. All you are doing (unwittingly) is defining a coordinate systems by the transformation x'=(x-vt)g^2, t'=(t-vx), for which objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, but objects at rest in S have velocity -vg^2 in terms of S'. Duh. The problem with this is that if S is a standard inertial coordinate system then S' is not, i.e., the equations of physics do not take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of S'.

And now you're reduced to denying simple grade school algebra.

> You want this forum to believe your long paragraphs.

It's a single sentence. See above. Any mentally competent adult can read and understand it.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:47:17 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:43:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > You keep repeating the same sentences...
>
> It's really just one sentence: The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
>
> You've said you dispute every part of this, which means you dipute the fact that the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g. But this is just grade school algebra, which any mentally competent adult can verify for themselves. Therefore, your beliefs are wrong, right?
> > you have been shown can be used in new ways to undo the consistency of relativity.
> To the contrary, your silly pronouncements have been thoroughly debunked. All you are doing (unwittingly) is defining a coordinate systems by the transformation x'=(x-vt)g^2, t'=(t-vx), for which objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, but objects at rest in S have velocity -vg^2 in terms of S'. Duh. The problem with this is that if S is a standard inertial coordinate system then S' is not, i.e., the equations of physics do not take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of S'.
>
> And now you're reduced to denying simple grade school algebra.
> > You want this forum to believe your long paragraphs.
> It's a single sentence. See above. Any mentally competent adult can read and understand it.
This is the equivalent of mathematical compulsive hand wringing. You should stop typing, whoever you are, until you understand what actually under discussion, which you don't.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:22:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> > x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of
> > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
> >
> > Your silly pronouncements have been thoroughly debunked. All you are doing (unwittingly)
> > is defining a coordinate systems by the transformation x'=(x-vt)g^2, t'=(t-vx), for which objects
> > at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, but objects at rest in S have velocity -vg^2 in terms
> > of S'. The problem with this is that if S is a standard inertial coordinate system then S' is not,
> > i.e., the equations of physics do not take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in
> > terms of S'.
>
> You should stop typing until you understand what actually under discussion, which you don't.

To the contrary, I've succinctly debunked your silly claim. Remember, you said one object was approaching another at the speed v = .867, and that taking length contraction and time dilation (but not relativity of simultaneity) into account he was approaching at speed 4v = 3.468. That is vg^2, as I just explained. Your inability to even recognize this is the real root of the problem here. Before you can even begin trying to understand the physics, you need to stop denying grade school algebra... but you refuse, because you apparently don't really want to understand.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:54:16 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:22:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> > > x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of
> > > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
> > >
> > > Your silly pronouncements have been thoroughly debunked. All you are doing (unwittingly)
> > > is defining a coordinate systems by the transformation x'=(x-vt)g^2, t'=(t-vx), for which objects
> > > at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, but objects at rest in S have velocity -vg^2 in terms
> > > of S'. The problem with this is that if S is a standard inertial coordinate system then S' is not,
> > > i.e., the equations of physics do not take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in
> > > terms of S'.
> >
> > You should stop typing until you understand what actually under discussion, which you don't.
>
> To the contrary, I've succinctly debunked your silly claim. Remember, you said one object was approaching another at the speed v = .867, and that taking length contraction and time dilation (but not relativity of simultaneity) into account he was approaching at speed 4v = 3.468. That is vg^2, as I just explained. Your inability to even recognize this is the real root of the problem here. Before you can even begin trying to understand the physics, you need to stop denying grade school algebra... but you refuse, because you apparently don't really want to understand.
I demonstrated the grade school algebraic wisdom of the LTs when demonstrated that the coordinate velocity is c in all cases. But you blew the derivation off without a single argument. You are blind as a bat mathematically. Same when I proved 1 = -1 without a single negative sign under a radical. You blew off that valid derivation too, never explaining your reasoning. Then I derived the velocity at which an object Lorentz-contracts. You couldn't even begin to comprehend those equations. Yet you continue to stamp your mathematical feet in the presence of your mathematical superior.