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

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

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

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