Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> https://paulba.no/
>>
>> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
>> your three event, three clock scenario.  For instance, at E1 there are
>> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
>> as viewed from Frame K'.
>
> This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
>
>
>> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
>> units have passed it by since E1.  According to your own calculation
>> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2.  From our vantage point in Frame K'
>> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
>> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
>> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
>>
>> Conclusion #5    (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
>
> Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> B' can't calculate a speed from that.
>
> But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
>

Typo!

But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Typo! But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d at t'= 0 when A
> was at x' = 0, can then calculate that the coordinate relative velocity
> of clock A in K' is v.

good post.

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/eval_argument/

Kalibr missile flying over Southern Ukraine

Results of a Kalibr missile strike on power station in Ivano-Frankovsk,
Ukraine

Kalibr Missile Strike on electrical substation in Lvov, Ukraine

Another view of Kalibr missile strike on US-backed terrorists in Kiev

Outstanding video of "foreign legion" terrorists becoming fertilizer.

Light Kalibration of Kiev

People by US embassy in Moscow demand to nuke Washington DC.

Aftermath of strikes on Kiev

Volodimor Ziolenski (or his body double) makes a cute selfy

Kiev getting slightly Kalibrated

Hacked webstream: Terrorists in Washington Authorized attack on Crimean
Bridge

US-backed terrorists in Dnepropetrovsk get a message from Kremlin

Wars are stupid. Better exterminate pests who start them.

Surreal view of massive loss of Ukrainian lives (graphic VDA)

Strike on American mercs in Zaporozhye

Heart-wrenching video from AFU soldiers

BREAKING: Russians are Demanding to Nuke Washington

On Tuesday, 11 October 2022 at 20:59:05 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
> >
> > Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis as viewed from Frame K'.
> This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K' we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> >
> > Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> B' can't calculate a speed from that.
>
> But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.

In the meantimein the real world, however, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> https://paulba.no/
> >>
> >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> >
> > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> >
> >
> >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> >>
> >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> >
> > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> >
> > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> >
>
> Typo!
>
> But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.

On 10/11/2022 3:30 PM, Mandy Stabile wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Typo! But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d at t'= 0 when A
>> was at x' = 0, can then calculate that the coordinate relative velocity
>> of clock A in K' is v.

> Results of a Kalibr missile strike on power station in Ivano-Frankovsk,
> Ukraine
>
> Kalibr Missile Strike on electrical substation in Lvov, Ukraine

So Stupid Putin is again wasting his expen$ive missiles against civilian
targets like pedestrian walkways. Luckily, most of the missiles were
shot down. Who knows which kindergartens that saved.

> Outstanding video of "foreign legion" terrorists becoming fertilizer.

63,000+ 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 invaders becoming sunflower fertilizer, last
figure I saw.

> Hacked webstream: Terrorists in Washington Authorized attack on Crimean
> Bridge

Needs another attack. It's not closed completely.

> Wars are stupid. Better exterminate pests who start them.

You are advocating "exterminating" Vladolf Putler? And you called him a
pest? You better HIDE Really Well!
>
> Surreal view of massive loss of Ukrainian lives (graphic VDA)

Targeting civilians is a war crime, nymshifter.

On 2022-10-11 19:47:32 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

[ … ]
>
> In the meantimein the real world, however, forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
> t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

511

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > >>
> > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > >
> > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > >>
> > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > >
> > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > >
> > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > >
> >
> > Typo!
> >
> > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.

Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.

It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis

in Frame K, d' = d/gamma

So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is

t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma

remembering that d' = d/gamma

t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]

d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2

And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.

This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.

The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...

Volney wrote:

>> Wars are stupid. Better exterminate pests who start them.
>
> uoY era gnitacovda "gnitanimretxe" flodalV ?reltuP dnA uoy dellac mih a
> ?tsep uoY retteb EDIH yllaeR !lleW
>>
>> Surreal view of massive loss of Ukrainian lives (graphic VDA)
>
> Targeting civilians is a war crime, nymshifter.

yes, sure, you will hang in trees along the roads, you fucking
war_criminals of cacamerica. You are immigrants on stolen country by
genocide. You'll be judge and likely executed for supporting the nazis in
the nonexistent "uKraine", for bombing civilians in eastern europe, bridges
and pipelines infrastructure. You'll be kicked out of europe, by the
people, for the 45 illegal *bio_weapons* labs in the fucking nazi oligarch
"uKraine". You cacamericans will not be forgotten. Much less that retarded
wanker, said bidans, stealing money, models and theories from the fucking
europe, as *opportunities*. That khazar bitch, nulland *fuck_the_EU*, will
not be forgotten as well. Neither the destruction of Yugoslavia, Iraq,
Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Japan, fascist Chile, etc, etc *AND*
etc.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > >
> > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > >>
> > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > >
> > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > >
> > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Typo!
> > >
> > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > https://paulba.no/
> > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
>
> It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
>
> in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
>
> So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
>
> t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
>
> remembering that d' = d/gamma
>
> t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
>
> d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
>
> And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
>
> This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
>
> The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...

This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Paul
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > >
> > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Typo!
> > > >
> > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> >
> > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> >
> > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> >
> > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> >
> > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> >
> > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> >
> > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> >
> > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> >
> > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> >
> > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> >
> > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...

> This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.

I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Paul
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Typo!
> > > > >
> > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > >
> > > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > >
> > > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > >
> > > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> > >
> > > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> > >
> > > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> > >
> > > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> > >
> > > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> > >
> > > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> > >
> > > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> > >
> > > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...
>
> > This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.

> I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...

Does this callow mutton chopped youth speak for the rest of you?

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Paul
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typo!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > > > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > > >
> > > > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > > >
> > > > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > > >
> > > > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> > > >
> > > > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> > > >
> > > > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> > > >
> > > > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> > > >
> > > > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> > > >
> > > > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> > > >
> > > > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> > > >
> > > > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...
> >
> > > This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.
>
> > I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...
> Does this callow mutton chopped youth speak for the rest of you?

Seems logic dictates "space contraction".

Rindler says it's real, ....

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > >>> Paul
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Typo!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > > > > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > > > >
> > > > > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > > > >
> > > > > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> > > > >
> > > > > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> > > > >
> > > > > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> > > > >
> > > > > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> > > > >
> > > > > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> > > > >
> > > > > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> > > > >
> > > > > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...
> > >
> > > > This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.
> >
> > > I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...
> > Does this callow mutton chopped youth speak for the rest of you?
> Seems logic dictates "space contraction".
>
> Rindler says it's real, ....

Ross, google Graham Priest and his dialetheism. Then report back to the forum, full details.

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:37:45 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > >>> Paul
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > > > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > > > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > > > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > > > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > > > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > > > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > > > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > > > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Typo!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > > > > > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> > > > > >
> > > > > > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> > > > > >
> > > > > > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> > > > > >
> > > > > > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...
> > > >
> > > > > This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.
> > >
> > > > I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...
> > > Does this callow mutton chopped youth speak for the rest of you?
> > Seems logic dictates "space contraction".
> >
> > Rindler says it's real, ....
> Ross, google Graham Priest and his dialetheism. Then report back to the forum, full details.

You too Mitch. I am exceedingly interested in your interpretation of Priest.

Den 12.10.2022 21:06, skrev patdolan:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
>>>> Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
>>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://paulba.no/
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
>>>>> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
>>>>> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
>>>>> as viewed from Frame K'.
>>>>
>>>> This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
>>>> the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
>>>>> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
>>>>> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
>>>>> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
>>>>> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
>>>>> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
>>>>>
>>>>> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
>>>>
>>>> Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
>>>> All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
>>>> B' can't calculate a speed from that.
>>>>
>>>> But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
>>>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
>>>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Typo!
>>>
>>> But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
>>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
>>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> https://paulba.no/
>> Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
>
> Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
>
> It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
>
> in Frame K, d' = d/gamma

I thought this was too stupid to respond to, but since you insist:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

A' and B' are stationary in K', the distance between them is d.
A and B are stationary in K , the distance between them is d.

If d = 10m, would you then say that the 'correct' labelling would be:
"B' is stationary at x'= -10'm in K' "?
What a weird and stupid idea!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:56:35 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:37:45 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B.. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>> Paul
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > > > > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > > > > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > > > > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > > > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > > > > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > > > > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > > > > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > > > > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > > > > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > > > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > > > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Typo!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > > > > > > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...
> > > > >
> > > > > > This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.
> > > >
> > > > > I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...
> > > > Does this callow mutton chopped youth speak for the rest of you?
> > > Seems logic dictates "space contraction".
> > >
> > > Rindler says it's real, ....
> > Ross, google Graham Priest and his dialetheism. Then report back to the forum, full details.
> You too Mitch. I am exceedingly interested in your interpretation of Priest.

I am not interested.

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.10.2022 21:06, skrev patdolan:
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>> Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> >>>> Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> >>>>> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> >>>>> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> >>>>> as viewed from Frame K'.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> >>>> the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> >>>>> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> >>>>> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> >>>>> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> >>>>> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> >>>>> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> >>>>
> >>>> Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> >>>> All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> >>>> B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> >>>>
> >>>> But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> >>>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> >>>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Typo!
> >>>
> >>> But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> >>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> >>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> https://paulba.no/
> >> Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> >
> > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> >
> > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> >
> > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> I thought this was too stupid to respond to, but since you insist:
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>
> A' and B' are stationary in K', the distance between them is d.
> A and B are stationary in K , the distance between them is d.
>
> If d = 10m, would you then say that the 'correct' labelling would be:
> "B' is stationary at x'= -10'm in K' "?

Yes, you foolish professor. You might as well say with as much false bluster that t2 in K is the same a t2' in K'. What has that got to do with your conclusions ????

> What a weird and stupid idea!

You might as well conclude that labeling the K' axis x' and the K axis x is also a stupid idea. We label the d with an apostrophe in K' to remind ourselves that d' and d will have different coordinate lengths and proper lengths in K' and K, respectively.

Enough of your sputtering faux anger in defeat. You have befooled yourself again.

I have derived the Dolatonian [ v' = v*gamma^2 ] right before your eyes on your own system. I can do it again without the missing Andersen apostrophe if you like.

But here's something you can't do; you can't derive inconsistency from the Dolatonian. Nor can you prove that v==v'. I dare you to try it. Go ahead, make my day.

>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 12:50:51 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:56:35 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:37:45 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B.. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > > > > > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > > > > > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > > > > > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > > > > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > > > > > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > > > > > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > > > > > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > > > > > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > > > > > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > > > > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > > > > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Typo!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > > > > > > > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...
> > > > > Does this callow mutton chopped youth speak for the rest of you?
> > > > Seems logic dictates "space contraction".
> > > >
> > > > Rindler says it's real, ....
> > > Ross, google Graham Priest and his dialetheism. Then report back to the forum, full details.
> > You too Mitch. I am exceedingly interested in your interpretation of Priest.
> I am not interested.

Dr. Priest is pretty great, and, paraconsistency, and, dialetheism, I wrote him one time and thanked him,
and read his book. They had it at the library.

The "dually-self-infraconsistency", it's most sound, "ex falso nihilum", the reason for space
contraction is that besides it's length contraction and time dilation together, about your Lorentz,
that there's mass-energy equivalency, and, non-zero vanishing cosmlogical constant.

This is for a real theory with what all the requirements of any true "Theory of Everything"
would be, logically. I also point at all the canon and demand they're right, too.

On Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 21:46:12 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.10.2022 21:06, skrev patdolan:
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>> Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> >>>> Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> >>>>> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> >>>>> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> >>>>> as viewed from Frame K'.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> >>>> the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> >>>>> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> >>>>> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> >>>>> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> >>>>> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> >>>>> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> >>>>
> >>>> Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> >>>> All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> >>>> B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> >>>>
> >>>> But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> >>>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> >>>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Typo!
> >>>
> >>> But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> >>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> >>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> https://paulba.no/
> >> Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> >
> > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> >
> > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> >
> > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> I thought this was too stupid to respond to, but since you insist:
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t
in forbidden by your bunch of idiots classical seconds.

On 2022-10-14 06:22:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 21:46:12 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 12.10.2022 21:06, skrev patdolan:> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022
>> at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022
>> at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:> >>> Den 11.10.2022
>> 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:> >>>> Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev
>> patdolan:> >>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul
>> B. Andersen wrote:> >>>>>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -->
>> >>>>>> Paul> >>>>>>> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/> >>>>>> >>>>> Paul A#1,
>> you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of> >>>>>
>> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are>
>> >>>>> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the
>> x-axis> >>>>> as viewed from Frame K'.> >>>>> >>>> This is a convoluted
>> way of saying that vied from frame K',> >>>> the distance d⋅γ in K is
>> Lorentz contracted to d.> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Therefore at E2 clock B'
>> will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length> >>>>> units have passed
>> it by since E1. According to your own calculation> >>>>> clock A reads
>> d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'> >>>>> we now
>> construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as> >>>>>
>> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance>
>> >>>>> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2> >>>>>
>> >>>> Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.> >>>> All B' can
>> observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.> >>>> B' can't
>> calculate a speed from that.> >>>>> >>>> But we, knowing that the
>> position of B was x' = -d> >>>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then
>> calculate that> >>>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K'
>> is v.> >>>>> >>>> >>> Typo!> >>>> >>> But we, knowing that the position
>> of B' was x' = -d> >>> at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then
>> calculate that> >>> the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K'
>> is v.> >>>> >>>> >>> --> >>> Paul> >>>> >>> https://paulba.no/> >>
>> Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must
>> correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the
>> correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after
>> all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.> >> >
>> Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate
>> the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error.
>> To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this
>> correction, we proceed.> >> > It is obvious that the distance | -d' |
>> in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact
>> it's own line for added emphasis> >> > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
>> I thought this was too stupid to respond to, but since you insist:>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=tin forbidden by
> your bunch of idiots classical seconds.

2^9 + 1. I had guessed that that was a prime, but that was silly, as
it's quite obvious that it'sduvisuble by 9.
--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:32:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 12:50:51 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:56:35 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:37:45 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:17:56 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 20:59, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Den 11.10.2022 04:20, skrev patdolan:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:02:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Paul A#1, you have not squeezed all of the conclusions possible out of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> your three event, three clock scenario. For instance, at E1 there are
> > > > > > > > > > > >> d*gamma x-axis length units between clock A and clock B' on the x-axis
> > > > > > > > > > > >> as viewed from Frame K'.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is a convoluted way of saying that vied from frame K',
> > > > > > > > > > > > the distance d⋅γ in K is Lorentz contracted to d.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Therefore at E2 clock B' will have counted that d*gamma x-axis length
> > > > > > > > > > > >> units have passed it by since E1. According to your own calculation
> > > > > > > > > > > >> clock A reads d/(v*gamma) at E2. From our vantage point in Frame K'
> > > > > > > > > > > >> we now construct the coordinate relative velocity of clock A as
> > > > > > > > > > > >> observed by clock B' at E2 by dividing the Dolan coordinate distance
> > > > > > > > > > > >> d*gamma by the Paul B. Andersen clock A coordinate time t_2:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Conclusion #5 (d*gamma)/(d/(v*gamma)) = v*gamma^2
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Clock B' can't observe the velocity of clock A.
> > > > > > > > > > > > All B' can observe is that clock A shows d/(v⋅γ) when B' shows d/v.
> > > > > > > > > > > > B' can't calculate a speed from that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Typo!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But we, knowing that the position of B' was x' = -d
> > > > > > > > > > > at t'= 0 when A was at x' = 0, can then calculate that
> > > > > > > > > > > the coordinate relative velocity of clock A in K' is v.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://paulba.no/
> > > > > > > > > > Before we proceed and further, Professor Paul B. Andersen, we must correct your otherwise excellent graphic. Will you stipulate that the correct label for point -d in Frame K' is actually -d' ? This is after all the correct labeling. And it will make all the difference.
> > > > > > > > > Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > remembering that d' = d/gamma
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And our Conclusion #6: In Frame K the coordinate relative velocity of Clock B' is v*gamma^2.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is precisely the Dolonian principle for converting proper relative velocity to coordinate relative velocity in the world of the Lorentz Transforms.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The conversion factor for converting proper to coordinate relative velocity in the Galilean World is 1.0000...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This post went up 6 hours ago! Were is the rejoinder??? Prof. Paul B. Andersen? Dirk? Sylvia? Tom Roberts? Legion? Jan PB? Python? Prokary? rotchm? Dono? Where are this forum's heavyweight contenders when the heart of special relativity has just been eviscerated? What about back bencher Paul Alsing? Who will step forward to save special relativity??? Bodkin would have fought for relativity, even against these odds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll speculate that all are tired of showing you over and over again why you are wrong and have you ignore them. After all, you don't know what you don't know, and that is quite obvious...
> > > > > > Does this callow mutton chopped youth speak for the rest of you?
> > > > > Seems logic dictates "space contraction".
> > > > >
> > > > > Rindler says it's real, ....
> > > > Ross, google Graham Priest and his dialetheism. Then report back to the forum, full details.
> > > You too Mitch. I am exceedingly interested in your interpretation of Priest.
> > I am not interested.
> Dr. Priest is pretty great, and, paraconsistency, and, dialetheism, I wrote him one time and thanked him,
> and read his book. They had it at the library.
>
> The "dually-self-infraconsistency", it's most sound, "ex falso nihilum", the reason for space
> contraction is that besides it's length contraction and time dilation together, about your Lorentz,
> that there's mass-energy equivalency, and, non-zero vanishing cosmlogical constant.
>
> This is for a real theory with what all the requirements of any true "Theory of Everything"
> would be, logically. I also point at all the canon and demand they're right, too.

Den 14.10.2022 04:47, skrev patdolan:
>> Den 12.10.2022 21:06, skrev patdolan:
>>>
>>> Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
So you are claiming that Fig. 1 is wrong.

>>>
>>> It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
>>>
>>> in Frame K, d' = d/gamma

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Quote:
"• Let’s have two clocks which are synchronized according
to Einstein’s procedure in each of two inertial frames
of reference.
• Let the clocks be a proper distance d from each other
in their respective frames.
• Let the frames move with the relative speed v.
"

patdolan reads this as:
"Let the clocks in one of the inertial frames be
a distance d/γ from each other, and let the clocks in
the other inertial frame be a distance d from each other."

Fig 1 is correct because by definition:
---------------------------------------
In frame K the distance between the stationary clocks A and B is d.
In frame K' the distance between the stationary clocks A' and B' is d.

However:
In frame K the distance between the moving clocks A' and B' is d/γ.
In frame K' the distance between the moving clocks A and B is d/γ.

>
> You might as well conclude that labeling the K' axis x' and the K axis x is also a stupid idea. We label the d with an apostrophe in K' to remind ourselves that d' and d will have different coordinate lengths and proper lengths in K' and K, respectively.

A bit confused, patdolan? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:06:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:

> in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
>
> So by your own calculation, t2 on Clock A and E2 is
>
> t2 = [ d'/v - ( d'v/c^2 ) ] x gamma = ( d'/v )/gamma
>
> remembering that d' = d/gamma
>
> t2 = [ d/( v*gamma ) ] / gamma = d/[ v*gamma^2 ]
>
> d/t2 = v*gamma^2 at E2
>

Pattycakes,

It is most entertaining watching your pathetic attempts at using the Lorentz transforms. You are as imbecile as Ken Shito. Maybe you two should team up?

On Friday, 14 October 2022 at 14:40:19 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.10.2022 04:47, skrev patdolan:
> >> Den 12.10.2022 21:06, skrev patdolan:
> >>>
> >>> Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> So you are claiming that Fig. 1 is wrong.
> >>>
> >>> It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> >>>
> >>> in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> Quote:
> "• Let’s have two clocks which are synchronized according
> to Einstein’s procedure in each of two inertial frames
> of reference.
> • Let the clocks be a proper distance d from each other
> in their respective frames.
> • Let the frames move with the relative speed v.
> "
>
> patdolan reads this as:
> "Let the clocks in one of the inertial frames be
> a distance d/γ from each other, and let the clocks in
> the other inertial frame be a distance d from each other."
>
> Fig 1 is correct because by definition:
> ---------------------------------------
> In frame K the distance between the stationary clocks A and B is d.
> In frame K' the distance between the stationary clocks A' and B' is d.
>
> However:
> In frame K the distance between the moving clocks A' and B' is d/γ.
> In frame K' the distance between the moving clocks A and B is d/γ.
> >
> > You might as well conclude that labeling the K' axis x' and the K axis x is also a stupid idea. We label the d with an apostrophe in K' to remind ourselves that d' and d will have different coordinate lengths and proper lengths in K' and K, respectively.
> A bit confused, patdolan? :-D

In the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your
bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t
in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
To dumb to be confused, paulanderson? :-D

On Friday, October 14, 2022 at 10:40:35 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 14 October 2022 at 14:40:19 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 14.10.2022 04:47, skrev patdolan:
> > >> Den 12.10.2022 21:06, skrev patdolan:
> > >>>
> > >>> Professor Paul, we've tarried long enough waiting for you to stipulate the truth; namely, that your almost perfect graphic contains one error. To wit, that in Frame K' the distance -d is actually -d'. With this correction, we proceed.
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > So you are claiming that Fig. 1 is wrong.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is obvious that the distance | -d' | in Frame K' is equivalent to d/gamma in Frame K. Let's give this fact it's own line for added emphasis
> > >>>
> > >>> in Frame K, d' = d/gamma
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
> > Quote:
> > "• Let’s have two clocks which are synchronized according
> > to Einstein’s procedure in each of two inertial frames
> > of reference.
> > • Let the clocks be a proper distance d from each other
> > in their respective frames.
> > • Let the frames move with the relative speed v.
> > "
> >
> > patdolan reads this as:
> > "Let the clocks in one of the inertial frames be
> > a distance d/γ from each other, and let the clocks in
> > the other inertial frame be a distance d from each other."
> >
> > Fig 1 is correct because by definition:
> > ---------------------------------------
> > In frame K the distance between the stationary clocks A and B is d.
> > In frame K' the distance between the stationary clocks A' and B' is d.
> >
> > However:
> > In frame K the distance between the moving clocks A' and B' is d/γ..
> > In frame K' the distance between the moving clocks A and B is d/γ.
> > >
> > > You might as well conclude that labeling the K' axis x' and the K axis x is also a stupid idea. We label the d with an apostrophe in K' to remind ourselves that d' and d will have different coordinate lengths and proper lengths in K' and K, respectively.
> > A bit confused, patdolan? :-D
> In the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your
> bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t
> in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
> To dumb to be confused, paulanderson? :-D

What's the clock of the satellite in the decaying orbit?

Straight down is a decaying orbit, ....

Here the satellite was launched from Earth so never actually
left or joined its frame, terrestrial frame.

Of course after that there's orbital frames, ..., that everything
orbits everything.

Any orbit is a decayed orbit, ....

The free work that keeps orbit or gravity, objects accelerate where
the source, ..., of the direct force vector between them, that that's
just some non-zero well in the potential space, and finite. This is where
"finite" means non-zero and non-infinite. This is that in deep space it's
for example zero, the potential, the object itself not gravitating.

Then, the gravitating frame is the terrestrial frame, where "the terrestrial
frame is the center of the orbit, for example we are on it".

There's keeping the inverse-square while the satellite "tracks the ephemeris",
what happens in the racionization of two bodies as the same size, or potential,
dynamics, or different sizes, statics in the gravitating and dynamics and statics
in the traversing.

There are different mechanisms of clocks and here basically they are mechanical,
pendulum or spring, clocks, for example, or, crystal quartz or atomic, ..., clocks.