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

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

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

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

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

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