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

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

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

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

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

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

Your choice.

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

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