Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute

According to the theory of Einstein, two events which are simultaneous
in one frame of reference, are not simultaneous in another. The
following thought experiment shows that this cannot be true. It
demonstrates that if two events occur at the same instant according to
clocks in one frame, they also occur at the same instant according to
the clocks of any other frame. The proof makes three assumptions, all of
which have been vehemently supported by proponents of Einstein on this
very newsgroup. They are (1) There is no absolute aether. (2) Atomic
clocks are unaffected by changes in gravity or the forces experienced in
centrifuges or GPS rocket launchers. (3) Nothing PHYSICALLY happens to
rigid rods or cesium clocks as a result of a speed change (that is
logically obvious since an acceleration in one frame means a
deceleration in an infinite number of others).

The experiment requires two aligned and identical rods and four
identical clocks, all of which are absolutely synchronized in both rate
and reading whilst together. The following steps are taken:

1. C1C2C3C4
__________________________________
__________________________________

2. The four clocks are moved carefully to the ends of the rods.
C1__________________________________C2
C3__________________________________C4

Since no aether exists, it can be assumed that the clocks have not
changed in any way (there is nothing which might have caused them to
change). They remain in perfect absiolute synch (and can be reunited any
time to check)

3. The rods are separated with identical but opposite movements.

C1__________________________________C2
C3__________________________________C4

Again, since there is no aether, it can be assumed that nothing
physically happens to either clocks or rods during this process.

4. The two systems are symmetrically caused to move towards each other.
C1__________________________________C2>v
v<C3__________________________________C4

5. Two events are now defined. E1 occurs when C1 and C3 are adjacent. E2
occurs when C2 and C4 are adjacent.
Since the clocks have not physically changed (and there is nothing which
might have caused them to change), it is obvious that when E1 occurs,
the reading of C1 must be identical to that of C3 and when E2 occurs,
the reading of C2 must be identical to that of C4. It also follows that
since the rods have not physically changed (and there is nothing which
might have caused them to change), all four readings which register the
two events must be the same.
Therefore simultaneity has been shown to be identical in both frames and
the events E1 and E2 are thus known to DEFINE the same ABSOLUTE instant
in all frames.

[Odd Bodkin]

Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?




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

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>
>>
>
> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
> frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?

Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.

>
>
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Oh, but you only drew it from the perspective of a third frame, in which
both rods are moving.

There is no inertial frame that either of the rod defines, because as
you say, the motion of the rod is not constant and so cannot be at rest
in any inertial frame.

If you want to take a look at the last part of your thought experiment
where the two rods are approaching each other, we can certainly find a
frame where one of the rods is at rest and the other one is moving. In
this frame, one does not expect E1 and E2 to occur at the same time.
This is obvious because one rod is shorter than the other in this frame,
and so it is physically impossible for the paired ends of the rods to
coincide at the same time. Isn't that obvious? In this frame, there's
going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to
coincide at the same time?

[Paul B. Andersen]

You start with four co-located synchronised clocks, and then you
move these four clock the same distances with the same speeds
in an inertial frame, so of course the clocks will stay in
synch in this inertial frame and will show the same whenever
they are adjacent.

You could simplify the scenario by having two synchronised
co-located clocks, move them away from each other in a symmetrical way,
and then move them back together again in a symmetrical way.
The clocks will obviously show the same.

So what was your point?

(A rhetoric question. Don't answer.)

Case closed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGW.]

On 23/08/16 06:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/22/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
>>> frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?
>>
>> Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.
>>
>
> Oh, but you only drew it from the perspective of a third frame, in which
> both rods are moving.
>
> There is no inertial frame that either of the rod defines, because as
> you say, the motion of the rod is not constant and so cannot be at rest
> in any inertial frame.
>
> If you want to take a look at the last part of your thought experiment
> where the two rods are approaching each other, we can certainly find a
> frame where one of the rods is at rest and the other one is moving. In
> this frame, one does not expect E1 and E2 to occur at the same time.

The rod frames can represent any frame you like. No wonder you can't
understand Ken Seto when he talks about frames. You obviously haven't a
clue.

> This is obvious because one rod is shorter than the other in this frame,

Why is it shorter? What would make it shorter?

> and so it is physically impossible for the paired ends of the rods to
> coincide at the same time.

Sorry. it is impossible for them NOT to coincide at the same absolute
instant.
You are basing your argument on a theory which has been derived on a
presumption that either an aether exists OR simultaneity is relative.
Like all your arguments, you are relying on circular logic.

Isn't that obvious? In this frame, there's
> going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to
> coincide at the same time?

Gamma does not exist. Nothing exists that can affect the lengths of the
rods.




--

[HGW.]

Oh dear, this man has serious dementia....



--

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/22/2016 5:20 PM, HGW. wrote:
> On 23/08/16 06:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/22/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
>>>> frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?
>>>
>>> Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, but you only drew it from the perspective of a third frame, in which
>> both rods are moving.
>>
>> There is no inertial frame that either of the rod defines, because as
>> you say, the motion of the rod is not constant and so cannot be at rest
>> in any inertial frame.
>>
>> If you want to take a look at the last part of your thought experiment
>> where the two rods are approaching each other, we can certainly find a
>> frame where one of the rods is at rest and the other one is moving. In
>> this frame, one does not expect E1 and E2 to occur at the same time.
>
> The rod frames can represent any frame you like.

?????

> No wonder you can't
> understand Ken Seto when he talks about frames. You obviously haven't a
> clue.
>
>> This is obvious because one rod is shorter than the other in this frame,
>
> Why is it shorter? What would make it shorter?

Length contraction, an observed experimental result. Nature doesn't lie
about itself.

So the fact that you don't understand WHY it happens should not lead you
to believe that it does NOT happen.

>
>> and so it is physically impossible for the paired ends of the rods to
>> coincide at the same time.
>
> Sorry. it is impossible for them NOT to coincide at the same absolute
> instant.

Sorry, but I disagree, based on experimental observation. You deciding
what is possible and what is impossible without reference to
experimental fact is faith at best, delusion at worst.

> You are basing your argument on a theory which has been derived on a
> presumption that either an aether exists OR simultaneity is relative.
> Like all your arguments, you are relying on circular logic.

No, I'm relying on experimental fact. I know you don't want to look at
data, preferring instead to focus on arguments and circularity and logic
and which presumptions you want to choose. But that's not what science
is about.

>
> Isn't that obvious? In this frame, there's
>> going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to
>> coincide at the same time?
>
> Gamma does not exist. Nothing exists that can affect the lengths of the
> rods.

Experimental fact.

[Paul B. Andersen]

So you don't remember what was your point?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/22/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
> >> frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?
> >
> > Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.
> >
>
> Oh, but you only drew it from the perspective of a third frame, in which
> both rods are moving.
>
> There is no inertial frame that either of the rod defines, because as
> you say, the motion of the rod is not constant and so cannot be at rest
> in any inertial frame.
>
> If you want to take a look at the last part of your thought experiment
> where the two rods are approaching each other, we can certainly find a
> frame where one of the rods is at rest and the other one is moving. In
> this frame, one does not expect E1 and E2 to occur at the same time.
> This is obvious because one rod is shorter than the other in this frame,

This is nonsense......SR says that length contraction is not material and that length contraction is a projection effect. In Henry's thought experiment, no material contraction means that E1 and E2 to occur at the same time.

> and so it is physically impossible for the paired ends of the rods to
> coincide at the same time.

Assertion is not a valid argument.

>Isn't that obvious? In this frame, there's
> going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to
> coincide at the same time?

You assumed material contraction when SR says that there is no material contraction. Gee you are confused.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/23/2016 3:40 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/22/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
>>>> frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?
>>>
>>> Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, but you only drew it from the perspective of a third frame, in which
>> both rods are moving.
>>
>> There is no inertial frame that either of the rod defines, because as
>> you say, the motion of the rod is not constant and so cannot be at rest
>> in any inertial frame.
>>
>> If you want to take a look at the last part of your thought experiment
>> where the two rods are approaching each other, we can certainly find a
>> frame where one of the rods is at rest and the other one is moving. In
>> this frame, one does not expect E1 and E2 to occur at the same time.
>> This is obvious because one rod is shorter than the other in this frame,
>
> This is nonsense......SR says that length contraction is not material and
> that length contraction is a projection effect.

Yes.

> In Henry's thought experiment, no material contraction means that E1 and
> E2 to occur at the same time.

No, it doesn't.

>
>> and so it is physically impossible for the paired ends of the rods to
>> coincide at the same time.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument.

See your above assertion. The one just before "No, it doesn't."

>
>> Isn't that obvious? In this frame, there's
>> going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to
>> coincide at the same time?
>
>
> You assumed material contraction when SR says that there is no material
> contraction. Gee you are confused.

I did not assume material contraction. I didn't say it, nor did I imply
it. If you dream things up like this, I can't help that.

[kenseto]

So according to you:
1. two clocks A and B moving in the opposite directions inertially.
2. A measures B moving toward him at Vab.
3. B measures A moving toward him at Vba.
4. When they meet each set his clock at zero.
5. After 24 hr. A and B turned around symmetrically and meet again.
6. You claim that they will have the same readings?

I don't think so.

[kenseto]

That's a lie. There is no material length contraction. There is light-path length shortening. That means that Henry's thought experiment is valid and simultaneity is absolute.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 23/08/16 22:11, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/22/2016 5:20 PM, HGW. wrote:
>> On 23/08/16 06:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> and so it is physically impossible for the paired ends of the rods to
>>> coincide at the same time.
>>
>> Sorry. it is impossible for them NOT to coincide at the same absolute
>> instant.
>
> Sorry, but I disagree, based on experimental observation. You deciding
> what is possible and what is impossible without reference to
> experimental fact is faith at best, delusion at worst.

There has never been anything like such an experimental observation.

>> You are basing your argument on a theory which has been derived on a
>> presumption that either an aether exists OR simultaneity is relative.
>> Like all your arguments, you are relying on circular logic.
>
> No, I'm relying on experimental fact.

There is none which supports your view.

I know you don't want to look at
> data, preferring instead to focus on arguments and circularity and logic
> and which presumptions you want to choose. But that's not what science
> is about.
>
>>
>> Isn't that obvious? In this frame, there's
>>> going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
>>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to
>>> coincide at the same time?
>>
>> Gamma does not exist. Nothing exists that can affect the lengths of the
>> rods.
>
> Experimental fact.

....which exists only in dingleberry dreams.
>
>

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 24/08/16 04:18, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 23.08.2016 00:22, HGW. wrote:
>> On 23/08/16 07:35, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> On 22.08.2016 21:34, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You start with four co-located synchronised clocks, and then you
>>> move these four clock the same distances with the same speeds
>>> in an inertial frame, so of course the clocks will stay in
>>> synch in this inertial frame and will show the same whenever
>>> they are adjacent.
>>>
>>> You could simplify the scenario by having two synchronised
>>> co-located clocks, move them away from each other in a symmetrical way,
>>> and then move them back together again in a symmetrical way.
>>> The clocks will obviously show the same.
>>>
>>> So what was your point?

You did not read it properly.

>>> (A rhetoric question. Don't answer.)
>>>
>>> Case closed.
>>
>> Oh dear, this man has serious dementia....
>
> So you don't remember what was your point?

I don't really have to now that you have proved it was right anyway.

[kenseto]

Yes you did.....you said that:

In this frame, there's going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time?

The rod length of L/gamma is material contraction....otherwise the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time.

[Odd Bodkin]

Length contraction is not material. It has nevertheless been measured in
experiment.

Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
if it were material. Are you an idiot?

> There is light-path length shortening. That means that Henry's thought experiment
> is valid and simultaneity is absolute.
>
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/23/2016 4:10 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 23/08/16 22:11, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/22/2016 5:20 PM, HGW. wrote:
>>> On 23/08/16 06:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> and so it is physically impossible for the paired ends of the rods to
>>>> coincide at the same time.
>>>
>>> Sorry. it is impossible for them NOT to coincide at the same absolute
>>> instant.
>>
>> Sorry, but I disagree, based on experimental observation. You deciding
>> what is possible and what is impossible without reference to
>> experimental fact is faith at best, delusion at worst.
>
> There has never been anything like such an experimental observation.

You're wrong.
Denial of historical and empirical facts only means that you are
insisting on living in a fantasy world where things offensive to you are
presumed nonexistence.
I really don't care about your fantasy world. I care about the real world.

>
>>> You are basing your argument on a theory which has been derived on a
>>> presumption that either an aether exists OR simultaneity is relative.
>>> Like all your arguments, you are relying on circular logic.
>>
>> No, I'm relying on experimental fact.
>
> There is none which supports your view.
>
> I know you don't want to look at
>> data, preferring instead to focus on arguments and circularity and logic
>> and which presumptions you want to choose. But that's not what science
>> is about.
>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that obvious? In this frame, there's
>>>> going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
>>>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to
>>>> coincide at the same time?
>>>
>>> Gamma does not exist. Nothing exists that can affect the lengths of the
>>> rods.
>>
>> Experimental fact.
>
> ....which exists only in dingleberry dreams.

Simply not true.

But go ahead and insist that Madagascar doesn't exist while you're at it.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, it's not. I didn't say it was material, nor did I imply that it's
material. Experimentally observed length contraction is not material
contraction.

> ...otherwise the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time.
>

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:40:35 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> This is nonsense......SR says that length contraction is not material
> and that length contraction is a projection effect.

A lie idiot ken! Why do you lie so much? SR says no such thing. SR
says x' = (x-vt)g and thats all. Stop using made up words, or made up words by others. Just use x' = (x-vt)g.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 24 sierpnia 2016 01:22:03 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:40:35 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
> > This is nonsense......SR says that length contraction is not material
> > and that length contraction is a projection effect.
>
> A lie idiot ken! Why do you lie so much? SR says no such thing. SR
> says x' = (x-vt)g and thats all.

Sure, SR is not responsible for mumble of its minions
like Tom at all!

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 23.08.2016 23:00, kenseto wrote:
>
> So according to you:
> 1. two clocks A and B moving in the opposite directions inertially.
> 2. A measures B moving toward him at Vab.
> 3. B measures A moving toward him at Vba.
> 4. When they meet each set his clock at zero.
> 5. After 24 hr. A and B turned around symmetrically and meet again.
> 6. You claim that they will have the same readings?
>
> I don't think so.
>

So what do you think?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

So you don't have to remember what your point was, now that I
have proven that the point you don't remember was right?

What I proved was that you didn't prove that simultaneity
was absolute, so this must have been your point, then.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[rotchm]

True. Tom (& others) should choose his words better when conversing specifically with idiot ken. One must not introduce new terminology to idiot ken. Already he has trouble with "length", subtractions, closing speeds, acceleration, etc.

[kenseto]

I think that one of the clock will have accumulated more clock seconds than the other.

[kenseto]

A lie....if it is not material then the two ends will line up perfectly to give absolute synch.

>
> Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
> if it were material. Are you an idiot?

ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Idiot it is measurable if you assume that the incoming speed of light is c. It is not. Also if it is not material what is contracting by a factor of 1/gamma?

>
> > There is light-path length shortening. That means that Henry's thought experiment
> > is valid and simultaneity is absolute.

No answer.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:28:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 4:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> >> I did not assume material contraction. I didn't say it, nor did I imply
> >> it. If you dream things up like this, I can't help that.
> >
> > Yes you did.....you said that:
> > In this frame, there's going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
> > L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time?
> >
> > The rod length of L/gamma is material contraction.
>
> No, it's not. I didn't say it was material, nor did I imply that it's
> material. Experimentally observed length contraction is not material
> contraction.

So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?....but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod with the moving material length of L/gamma to reach the bogus assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
Are you just doing physics by whatever comes to your pea brain?

[Odd Bodkin]

And you're wrong.

[Odd Bodkin]

Nope. Length contraction is measured.

>
>>
>> Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
>> if it were material. Are you an idiot?
>
> ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Idiot it is measurable if you assume that the incoming
> speed of light is c.

It's measured to be c. And length contraction is measurable.

> It is not. Also if it is not material what is contracting by a factor of 1/gamma?

The measured length. Even though the length contraction is not material.

>
>>
>>> There is light-path length shortening. That means that Henry's thought experiment
>>> is valid and simultaneity is absolute.
>
> No answer.
>

It wasn't worth answering.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/24/2016 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:28:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 4:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>> I did not assume material contraction. I didn't say it, nor did I imply
>>>> it. If you dream things up like this, I can't help that.
>>>
>>> Yes you did.....you said that:
>>> In this frame, there's going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
>>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time?
>>>
>>> The rod length of L/gamma is material contraction.
>>
>> No, it's not. I didn't say it was material, nor did I imply that it's
>> material. Experimentally observed length contraction is not material
>> contraction.
>
> So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?

No, it's not.

> ....but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod

No, I compared the length L of the stationary rod. I never inserted the
word "material". You did.

> with the moving material length of L/gamma

With the moving rod's length L/gamma. Not material length. You called it
material length.

> to reach the bogus assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
> Are you just doing physics by whatever comes to your pea brain?

The two lengths are not equal. They can't possibly line up both ends at
the same time.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?....
> but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod
> with the moving material length of L/gamma to reach the bogus
> assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.

Idiot ken, you fail to use appropriately the word, or concept of "material". Forget about the word "material" since it confuses you.

SR says nothing about "material". Length contraction, or the gamma factor simply relates to the *value* you will obtain after a certain procedure is performed.

To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain.

Asking "is the value material ? " makes no sense and is irrelevant.
So, to make it clear for your pea brain, I am ORDERING you to NEVER use the expression "material length" again. Understood!?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 24/08/16 07:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 4:05 PM, kenseto wrote:


>>>>
>>>> Why is it shorter? What would make it shorter?
>>>
>>> Length contraction, an observed experimental result. Nature doesn't lie
>>> about itself.
>>
>> That's a lie. There is no material length contraction.
>
> Length contraction is not material. It has nevertheless been measured in
> experiment.

In aether theories...which includes SR... length contraction IS
material. It has never been measured and there is no aether.

> Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
> if it were material. Are you an idiot?

If it was not material it would exist only in fairyland.

>> There is light-path length shortening. That means that Henry's thought
>> experiment
>> is valid and simultaneity is absolute.

Light plays no part in my experiment.

Light has nothing to do with the existence of space or time.

[Paul B. Andersen]

And which of the clocks will that be? A or B?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 25/08/16 02:06, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
>> So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?....
>> but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod
>> with the moving material length of L/gamma to reach the bogus
>> assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
>
> Idiot ken, you fail to use appropriately the word, or concept of
> "material". Forget about the word "material" since it confuses you.
>
> SR says nothing about "material". Length contraction, or the gamma
> factor simply relates to the *value* you will obtain after a certain
> procedure is performed.
>
> To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain
> procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain.

...and SR predicts wrongly.
However SR correctly predicts that nothing at all happens to the rods
during a speed change. Therefore the two ends must line up at the same
absolute instant no matter what their relative speed might be.

SR's predictions are based entirely on the transforms which are derived
from an assumption that simultaneity is not a physical effect at all but
is defined by what human eyes perceive. That notion is laughable.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Your close buddy Bodkin just said Ken above statement was correct. Are
you calling him a liar too?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 24/08/16 21:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>>>>> So what was your point?
>>
>> You did not read it properly.
>>
>>>>> (A rhetoric question. Don't answer.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Case closed.
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear, this man has serious dementia....
>>>
>>> So you don't remember what was your point?
>>
>> I don't really have to now that you have proved it was right anyway.
>>
>
> So you don't have to remember what your point was, now that I
> have proven that the point you don't remember was right?
>
> What I proved was that you didn't prove that simultaneity
> was absolute, so this must have been your point, then.

You proved that there is no 'twins paradox'...and that was a vital part
of my proof. Ken has explained to you the other vital part.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:15:01 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 25/08/16 02:06, rotchm wrote:

> > To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain
> > procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain.
>
> ...and SR predicts wrongly.

Ken is clueless and funny. You are just a reality denier and boring.

Because of my beliefs in SR, I have a few condos, luxury cars & motor bikes, and always on vacation. What have your beliefs brought you?

Believe in that!

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Idiot! You're just a grubby little dole bludger who lurks around
internet cafes. I'm the one with the two luxury cars and the mansion in
paradise.

> Believe in that!
>

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 24.08.2016 19:23, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 24/08/16 21:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> On 23.08.2016 23:13, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 24/08/16 04:18, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> On 23.08.2016 00:22, HGW. wrote:

>>>>> On 23/08/16 07:35, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what was your point?
>>>>>

>>>>> Oh dear, this man has serious dementia....
>>>>
>>>> So you don't remember what was your point?
>>>
>>> I don't really have to now that you have proved it was right anyway.
>>
>> So you don't have to remember what your point was, now that I
>> have proven that the point you don't remember was right?
>>
>> What I proved was that you didn't prove that simultaneity
>> was absolute, so this must have been your point, then.
>
> You proved that there is no 'twins paradox'...and that was a vital part
> of my proof.

Quite right.
I proved (or rather - pointed out the obvious) that when two
synchronised co-located clocks move away from each other in
a symmetrical way, and then move back together again in
a symmetrical way, then the clocks will obviously show the same.

And this "no twin paradox" was a vital proof of what?
That the prediction of SR is right?

> Ken has explained to you the other vital part.

Does that mean that you agree with Ken that the clocks
will not read the same? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/24/2016 11:58 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 24/08/16 07:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 4:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it shorter? What would make it shorter?
>>>>
>>>> Length contraction, an observed experimental result. Nature doesn't lie
>>>> about itself.
>>>
>>> That's a lie. There is no material length contraction.
>>
>> Length contraction is not material. It has nevertheless been measured in
>> experiment.
>
> In aether theories...which includes SR... length contraction IS
> material.

In aether theories, which SR is NOT, length contraction is material indeed.

In SR, length contraction is not material.

> It has never been measured and there is no aether.

It HAS been measured in the real world, though maybe not in your fantasy
world. And there is no evidence of aether.

>
>> Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
>> if it were material. Are you an idiot?
>
> If it was not material it would exist only in fairyland.

Bullshit.

>
>>> There is light-path length shortening. That means that Henry's thought
>>> experiment
>>> is valid and simultaneity is absolute.
>
> Light plays no part in my experiment.
>
> Light has nothing to do with the existence of space or time.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/24/2016 12:15 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> ...and SR predicts wrongly.
> However SR correctly predicts that nothing at all happens to the rods
> during a speed change.

The length changes with speed of the rod relative to the observer. There
is no physical interaction happening to the rod to cause that change,
but it is nevertheless real and measured.

Your statement that "nothing at all happens to the rods" is a statement
that is so vague that it is wrong.

> Therefore the two ends must line up at the same
> absolute instant no matter what their relative speed might be.
>
> SR's predictions are based entirely on the transforms which are derived
> from an assumption that simultaneity is not a physical effect at all but
> is defined by what human eyes perceive.

Heck no, it has nothing to do with what eyes perceive, in SR.

> That notion is laughable.

[kenseto]

It depends on the state of absolute motion of A vs B. If B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A then it will have accumulated less clock seconds than A. If B is in a lower sate of absolute motion than A then it will have accumulated more clock seconds than A.

[Paul B. Andersen]

As measured in an inertial frame:
A and B move at the same speed out and at the same speed back.


|v b
| /\
| / \ A
| / \
| / \
a|/ \d___ t
|\ /
| \ /
| \ / B
| \ /
| \/
c

Even if this inertial frame moves at some absolute speed,
will not A accumulate the same number of seconds on a-b
as B accumulates on c-d, and will not A accumulate the same
number of seconds on b-d as B accumulates on a-c?

The integral of the absolute speed will then be the same,
so why will A and B not accumulate the same number of seconds?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Odd Bodkin]

And in this case where A and B have exactly the same motions by
symmetry, what do you say?

[kenseto]

Because if they were traveling at different absolute speeds they will not meet at the same point as when they were meeting for the first time.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 10:26:22 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
>
> Because of my beliefs in SR, I have a few condos, luxury cars & motor bikes, and always on vacation.

Talk about Pinocchio!

[Paul B. Andersen]

If A and B are travelling at the same absolute speed,
why will they not accumulate the same number of seconds?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

Yes if A and B are traveling at the same absolute speed then they will accumulate the same number of seconds when they meet again. However, that's a very unlikely case.....why? Because observed relative motion between A and B is the result of the difference in their absolute motions.

[kenseto]

There is no symmetry....it is likely A and B will meet at a different location in space the second time. That means that they were traveling different absolute speeds.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 3:59:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 11:58 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > On 24/08/16 07:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2016 4:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is it shorter? What would make it shorter?
> >>>>
> >>>> Length contraction, an observed experimental result. Nature doesn't lie
> >>>> about itself.
> >>>
> >>> That's a lie. There is no material length contraction.
> >>
> >> Length contraction is not material. It has nevertheless been measured in
> >> experiment.
> >
> > In aether theories...which includes SR... length contraction IS
> > material.
>
> In aether theories, which SR is NOT, length contraction is material indeed.
>
> In SR, length contraction is not material.

So what is contracting?

>
> > It has never been measured and there is no aether.
>
> It HAS been measured in the real world, though maybe not in your fantasy
> world. And there is no evidence of aether.

Bullshit....no such measurement ever been made.

>
> >
> >> Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
> >> if it were material. Are you an idiot?
> >
> > If it was not material it would exist only in fairyland.
>
> Bullshit.

Yes what you said is bullshit.
>

[kenseto]

Idiot.

[Odd Bodkin]

If everything is symmetric, why would they end up in a different location?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/25/2016 11:56 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 3:59:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/24/2016 11:58 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 24/08/16 07:24, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2016 4:05 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is it shorter? What would make it shorter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Length contraction, an observed experimental result. Nature doesn't lie
>>>>>> about itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie. There is no material length contraction.
>>>>
>>>> Length contraction is not material. It has nevertheless been measured in
>>>> experiment.
>>>
>>> In aether theories...which includes SR... length contraction IS
>>> material.
>>
>> In aether theories, which SR is NOT, length contraction is material indeed.
>>
>> In SR, length contraction is not material.
>
> So what is contracting?

The length of the rod. It is not a material contraction.

>>
>>> It has never been measured and there is no aether.
>>
>> It HAS been measured in the real world, though maybe not in your fantasy
>> world. And there is no evidence of aether.
>
> Bullshit....no such measurement ever been made.

Nonsense. It's documented in the literature.

>>
>>>
>>>> Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
>>>> if it were material. Are you an idiot?
>>>
>>> If it was not material it would exist only in fairyland.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Yes what you said is bullshit.

No, it's really been measured.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Didn't you understand this?

As measured in an inertial frame:
A and B move at the same speed out and at the same speed back.


|v b
| /\
| / \ A
| / \
| / \
a|/ \d___ t
|\ /
| \ /
| \ / B
| \ /
| \/
c

Even if this inertial frame moves at some absolute speed,
will not A accumulate the same number of seconds on a-b
as B accumulates on c-d, and will not A accumulate the same
number of seconds on b-d as B accumulates on a-c?

The integral of the absolute speed will then be the same,
so why will A and B not accumulate the same number of seconds?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:54:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/24/2016 10:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:02:28 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> On 23.08.2016 23:00, kenseto wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So according to you:
> >>> 1. two clocks A and B moving in the opposite directions inertially.
> >>> 2. A measures B moving toward him at Vab.
> >>> 3. B measures A moving toward him at Vba.
> >>> 4. When they meet each set his clock at zero.
> >>> 5. After 24 hr. A and B turned around symmetrically and meet again.
> >>> 6. You claim that they will have the same readings?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think so.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So what do you think?
> >
> > I think that one of the clock will have accumulated more clock seconds than the other.
> >
>

> And you're wrong.

And you are an idiot.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:

> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:24:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2016 4:05 PM, kenseto wrote:

> >>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:11:15 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/22/2016 5:20 PM, HGW. wrote:
> >>>>> On 23/08/16 06:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/22/2016 3:44 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
> >>>>>>>> frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh, but you only drew it from the perspective of a third frame, in which
> >>>>>> both rods are moving.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no inertial frame that either of the rod defines, because as
> >>>>>> you say, the motion of the rod is not constant and so cannot be at rest
> >>>>>> in any inertial frame.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to take a look at the last part of your thought experiment
> >>>>>> where the two rods are approaching each other, we can certainly find a
> >>>>>> frame where one of the rods is at rest and the other one is moving. In
> >>>>>> this frame, one does not expect E1 and E2 to occur at the same time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rod frames can represent any frame you like.
> >>>>
> >>>> ?????
> >>>>
> >>>>> No wonder you can't
> >>>>> understand Ken Seto when he talks about frames. You obviously haven't a
> >>>>> clue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is obvious because one rod is shorter than the other in this frame,

> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is it shorter? What would make it shorter?
> >>>>
> >>>> Length contraction, an observed experimental result. Nature doesn't lie
> >>>> about itself.
> >>>
> >>> That's a lie. There is no material length contraction.
> >>
> >> Length contraction is not material. It has nevertheless been measured in
> >> experiment.
> >

> > A lie....if it is not material then the two ends will line up perfectly to give absolute synch.
>
> Nope. Length contraction is measured.

Nope length contraction never been measured......in fact it is impossible to do so.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Only an idiot would say that length contraction could only be measurable
> >> if it were material. Are you an idiot?
> >

> > ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Idiot it is measurable if you assume that the incoming
> > speed of light is c.
>
> It's measured to be c. And length contraction is measurable.
>
> > It is not. Also if it is not material what is contracting by a factor of 1/gamma?
>
> The measured length. Even though the length contraction is not material.

>
> >
> >>
> >>> There is light-path length shortening. That means that Henry's thought experiment
> >>> is valid and simultaneity is absolute.
> >

> > No answer.
> >
>
> It wasn't worth answering.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:58:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:28:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2016 4:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I did not assume material contraction. I didn't say it, nor did I imply
> >>>> it. If you dream things up like this, I can't help that.
> >>>
> >>> Yes you did.....you said that:
> >>> In this frame, there's going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
> >>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time?
> >>>
> >>> The rod length of L/gamma is material contraction.
> >>
> >> No, it's not. I didn't say it was material, nor did I imply that it's
> >> material. Experimentally observed length contraction is not material
> >> contraction.
> >

> > So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?
>

> No, it's not.
>
> > ....but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod
>
> No, I compared the length L of the stationary rod. I never inserted the
> word "material". You did.

So length L in your stationary frame is not material??? So when you use a ruler to measure length the ruler is not material??? you are such a fanatical arsehole.

>
> > with the moving material length of L/gamma
>

> With the moving rod's length L/gamma. Not material length. You called it
> material length.
>
> > to reach the bogus assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
> > Are you just doing physics by whatever comes to your pea brain?
>
> The two lengths are not equal. They can't possibly line up both ends at
> the same time.

Why isn't it? You asserted that there is no material shrinkage.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 12:06:22 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>

> > So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?....

> > but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod

> > with the moving material length of L/gamma to reach the bogus

> > assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
>

> Idiot ken, you fail to use appropriately the word, or concept of "material". Forget about the word "material" since it confuses you.
>
> SR says nothing about "material". Length contraction, or the gamma factor simply relates to the *value* you will obtain after a certain procedure is performed.
>
> To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain.

So what is the procedure?

>
> Asking "is the value material ? " makes no sense and is irrelevant.
> So, to make it clear for your pea brain, I am ORDERING you to NEVER use the expression "material length" again. Understood!?

You are a moron and you make no sense.

[kenseto]

How do you know that everything is symmetric? Why couldn't they approach each other different absolute speeds?????

[Odd Bodkin]

Wrong and right is determined by experiment in science, not
name-calling, not alternate explanations.

[Odd Bodkin]

Factually incorrect.
There is documentation of length contraction measurement, though not in
the way you have suggested would convince you. Nevertheless, it has been
done. You saying that's impossible means nothing.

You might as well say that men landing on the moon is impossible and has
never been done.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/25/2016 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:58:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/24/2016 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:28:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2016 4:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I did not assume material contraction. I didn't say it, nor did I imply
>>>>>> it. If you dream things up like this, I can't help that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes you did.....you said that:
>>>>> In this frame, there's going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
>>>>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time?
>>>>>
>>>>> The rod length of L/gamma is material contraction.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not. I didn't say it was material, nor did I imply that it's
>>>> material. Experimentally observed length contraction is not material
>>>> contraction.
>>>
>>> So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>> ....but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod
>>
>> No, I compared the length L of the stationary rod. I never inserted the
>> word "material". You did.
>
> So length L in your stationary frame is not material???

Ken, material length contraction doesn't mean you use a material ruler
to measure it. Good fucking grief.

Are you REALLY going to say that if length contraction is measured with
a material instrument, then it is material length contraction?

> So when you use a ruler to measure length the ruler is not material??? you are such a fanatical arsehole.
>>
>>> with the moving material length of L/gamma
>>
>> With the moving rod's length L/gamma. Not material length. You called it
>> material length.
>>
>>> to reach the bogus assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
>>> Are you just doing physics by whatever comes to your pea brain?
>>
>> The two lengths are not equal. They can't possibly line up both ends at
>> the same time.
>
> Why isn't it? You asserted that there is no material shrinkage.

Two objects of DIFFERENT LENGTH cannot ever be positioned so that their
ends line up at the same time. Are you nuts?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/25/2016 3:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:21:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/25/2016 11:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:42:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/24/2016 9:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:12:12 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.08.2016 17:03, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:02:28 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23.08.2016 23:00, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So according to you:
>>>>>>>>> 1. two clocks A and B moving in the opposite directions inertially.
>>>>>>>>> 2. A measures B moving toward him at Vab.
>>>>>>>>> 3. B measures A moving toward him at Vba.
>>>>>>>>> 4. When they meet each set his clock at zero.
>>>>>>>>> 5. After 24 hr. A and B turned around symmetrically and meet again.
>>>>>>>>> 6. You claim that they will have the same readings?
>>>>>>>>>

>>>> And in this case where A and B have exactly the same motions by
>>>> symmetry, what do you say?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no symmetry....it is likely A and B will meet at a different location in space the
>>> second time. That means that they were traveling different absolute speeds.
>>
>> If everything is symmetric, why would they end up in a different location?
>
> How do you know that everything is symmetric? Why couldn't they approach each other different
> absolute speeds?????
>

It was SET UP to be symmetric. Look at the drawing! Does that look
symmetric or asymmetric to you?

Look at condition 1: Two clocks moving in opposite directions at the
same speed.
Look at condition 5: After 24 hr A and B turn around SYMMETRICALLY (your
words) and meet again.

[kenseto]

Right and your claim is not supported by science.

[kenseto]

No idiot.....I said A measures B moving at speed Vab and B measures A moving at speed Vba....you are such a liar.

[Odd Bodkin]

Your science, or physicists' science?

Want to see what physicists say about the case above?

[Odd Bodkin]

Is it your claim that relative speeds Vba and Vab can have different values?

Tell me, Ken, you and I are on two boats. I measure you moving away from
me at a speed of 25 mph? Now, Ken, what speed will you measure me moving
away from you? There is only ONE right answer here. Do you know what it is?

Now we are walking on the sidewalk toward each other. You measure me
moving toward you at 6.3 mph. Now, Ken, what speed will I measure you
moving toward me? There is only ONE right answer here. Do you know what
it is?

>
>> Look at condition 5: After 24 hr A and B turn around SYMMETRICALLY (your
>> words) and meet again.
>

[kenseto]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:58:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/24/2016 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 5:28:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/23/2016 4:16 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I did not assume material contraction. I didn't say it, nor did I imply
> >>>>>> it. If you dream things up like this, I can't help that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes you did.....you said that:
> >>>>> In this frame, there's going to be a rod of length L that's stationary, and a rod of length
> >>>>> L/gamma that's passing it. How are the ends of those two rods going to coincide at the same time?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rod length of L/gamma is material contraction.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, it's not. I didn't say it was material, nor did I imply that it's
> >>>> material. Experimentally observed length contraction is not material
> >>>> contraction.
> >>>
> >>> So "a rod length L/gamma that's passing it" is not material?
> >>
> >> No, it's not.
> >>
> >>> ....but then you compared the material length L of the stationary rod
> >>
> >> No, I compared the length L of the stationary rod. I never inserted the
> >> word "material". You did.
> >
> > So length L in your stationary frame is not material???
>
> Ken, material length contraction doesn't mean you use a material ruler
> to measure it. Good fucking grief.

Idiot in Henry's thought experiment it is material....Good fucking grief.

>
> Are you REALLY going to say that if length contraction is measured with
> a material instrument, then it is material length contraction?

Good fucking grief.....it is in Henry's thought experiment. You said:
You compared the material length of a meter stick in your frame to a contracted material length of L/gamma of a moving meter stick to reach the assertion that the ends can never be coincided as they move past each other. This is true only if the contraction is material.
This means that your RoS is toasted. This also mean that all the paradoxes of SR derived from the P2 remain unexplained.

>
> > So when you use a ruler to measure length the ruler is not material??? you are such a fanatical arsehole.



> >>
> >>> with the moving material length of L/gamma
> >>
> >> With the moving rod's length L/gamma. Not material length. You called it
> >> material length.
> >>
> >>> to reach the bogus assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
> >>> Are you just doing physics by whatever comes to your pea brain?
> >>
> >> The two lengths are not equal. They can't possibly line up both ends at
> >> the same time.
> >
> > Why isn't it? You asserted that there is no material shrinkage.
>
> Two objects of DIFFERENT LENGTH cannot ever be positioned so that their
> ends line up at the same time. Are you nuts?

IDIOT...This is true only if the objects are of DIFFERENT MATERIAL LENGTH.

[kenseto]

YES THEY CAN HAVE DIFFERENT VALUES.....WHY? BECAUSE A'S CLOCK SECOND HAVE DIFFERENT DURATION THAN a B CLOCK SECOND. IOW a clock second is not a universal interval of time.

[Odd Bodkin]

Tell me what this answer is, then, Ken.

>>
>> Now we are walking on the sidewalk toward each other. You measure me
>> moving toward you at 6.3 mph. Now, Ken, what speed will I measure you
>> moving toward me? There is only ONE right answer here. Do you know what
>> it is?

Tell me what this answer is, then, Ken.

[Odd Bodkin]

If you think I said anything like what you wrote below, then you are
insane and cannot read. There was no meter stick in anything that Henry
wrote or in what I wrote.

I also think it is hysterical that you believe that if length is
measured with a material meter stick, then this means length contraction
must be material contraction.

> You compared the material length of a meter stick in your frame to a contracted
> material length of L/gamma of a moving meter stick to reach the assertion that
> the ends can never be coincided as they move past each other. This is true only
> if the contraction is material.
> This means that your RoS is toasted. This also mean that all the paradoxes of
> SR derived from the P2 remain unexplained.
>>
>>> So when you use a ruler to measure length the ruler is not material??? you
>>> are such a fanatical arsehole.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> with the moving material length of L/gamma
>>>>
>>>> With the moving rod's length L/gamma. Not material length. You called it
>>>> material length.
>>>>
>>>>> to reach the bogus assertion that the ends of the rods cannot be coincided at all.
>>>>> Are you just doing physics by whatever comes to your pea brain?
>>>>
>>>> The two lengths are not equal. They can't possibly line up both ends at
>>>> the same time.
>>>
>>> Why isn't it? You asserted that there is no material shrinkage.
>>
>> Two objects of DIFFERENT LENGTH cannot ever be positioned so that their
>> ends line up at the same time. Are you nuts?
>
> IDIOT...This is true only if the objects are of DIFFERENT MATERIAL LENGTH.

Nope. Not so. Nor does your assertion make it so.

[kenseto]

Idiot at high speed such as .5c there will be a measurable difference. At low speed the difference is too small and it is not measurable. Gee you are so stupid.

[kenseto]

Idiot a meter stick is the rod in Henry's experiment.

>
> I also think it is hysterical that you believe that if length is
> measured with a material meter stick, then this means length contraction
> must be material contraction.

But when you insisted that a moving meter stick is shorter by a factor of 1/gamma and that's why its end cannot be coincide with a stationary meter stick.....such assertion means that you are comparing material length.

[Odd Bodkin]

Nope. There is only ONE correct answer for both questions. Do you know
what it is? I've given you the value of Vab in both cases. What's Vba in
both cases?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 26/08/16 03:22, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 11:56 AM, kenseto wrote:

>>> In aether theories, which SR is NOT, length contraction is material
>>> indeed.
>>>
>>> In SR, length contraction is not material.
>>
>> So what is contracting?
>
> The length of the rod. It is not a material contraction.
>
>>>
>>>> It has never been measured and there is no aether.
>>>
>>> It HAS been measured in the real world, though maybe not in your fantasy
>>> world. And there is no evidence of aether.
>>
>> Bullshit....no such measurement ever been made.
>
> Nonsense. It's documented in the literature.

Aether SciFi literature.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 25/08/16 04:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 24.08.2016 19:23, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:


>>> What I proved was that you didn't prove that simultaneity
>>> was absolute, so this must have been your point, then.
>>
>> You proved that there is no 'twins paradox'...and that was a vital part
>> of my proof.
>
> Quite right.
> I proved (or rather - pointed out the obvious) that when two
> synchronised co-located clocks move away from each other in
> a symmetrical way, and then move back together again in
> a symmetrical way, then the clocks will obviously show the same.
>
> And this "no twin paradox" was a vital proof of what?
> That the prediction of SR is right?
>
>> Ken has explained to you the other vital part.
>
> Does that mean that you agree with Ken that the clocks
> will not read the same? :-D

No....wrong part...

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 25/08/16 06:22, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 12:15 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>> ...and SR predicts wrongly. However SR correctly predicts that
>> nothing at all happens to the rods during a speed change.
>
> The length changes with speed of the rod relative to the observer.
> There is no physical interaction happening to the rod to cause that
> change, but it is nevertheless real and measured.
>
> Your statement that "nothing at all happens to the rods" is a
> statement that is so vague that it is wrong.

Well let me put it another way. A rod is exacly the same rod in every
respect after it has undergone a speed change.

>> Therefore the two ends must line up at the same absolute instant no
>> matter what their relative speed might be.
>>
>> SR's predictions are based entirely on the transforms which are
>> derived from an assumption that simultaneity is not a physical
>> effect at all but is defined by what human eyes perceive.
>
> Heck no, it has nothing to do with what eyes perceive, in SR.

...but SR is based on the RoS which is based on what human eyes
perceive. Didn't you know that?

>> That notion is laughable.

SR is laughable

>
>

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 5:19:27 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> ...but SR is based on the RoS

No, it's not, abysmally-stupid lying weasel. It is a consequence of the
two postulates of SR, which have NEVER been refuted and all experiments
confirm them. My, but you are fatally dishonest.

You are SO laughable.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>
>> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and one
>> frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous. So what?

>Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.

Ralph, while that may be true, you *still* described everything from a
third observer frame, separate from the frames of either rod. All you did
is prove that if two events E1 and E2 are simultaneous in a frame F, the
two events are simultaneous in the frame F.

You need to describe events as seen by an observer in Rod 1's frame and by
an observer in Rod 2's frame to prove anything.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:95c6208c-93b4-4dce...@googlegroups.com...

|No, it's not, abysmally-stupid lying weasel. It is a consequence of the
|two postulates of SR, which have NEVER been refuted and all experiments
|confirm them. My, but you are fatally dishonest.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. As the clocks
of GPS indicate t'=t, time (as defined by your idiot
guru himself) is galilean with a precision of an
acceptable error.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:21:50 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:95c6208c-93b4-4dce...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > No, it's not, abysmally-stupid lying weasel. It is a consequence of the
> > two postulates of SR, which have NEVER been refuted and all experiments
> > confirm them. My, but you are fatally dishonest.
>
> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.

Nope, really stupid fool. Anyone with a brain can figure out that I spoke
the truth and that you are a liar and have a dysfunctional brain.

> As the clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, time (as defined by your idiot
> guru himself) is galilean with a precision of an acceptable error.

Another lie, but what else can be expected of a brainless liar?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:49a2c5bc-934b-4815...@googlegroups.com...

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 27/08/16 16:11, Michael Moron-y proved yet again that he has no clue:

> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>> On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and
>>> one frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous.
>>> So what?
>
>> Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.
>

> Henry, while that may be true, you *still* described everything from

> a third observer frame, separate from the frames of either rod. All
> you did is prove that if two events E1 and E2 are simultaneous in a
> frame F, the two events are simultaneous in the frame F.

Idiot! You don't even understand SR. What is your reason for defending it?
According to Einstein, if two events are simultaneous in one frame, they
are not simultaneous in any other. By accepting my proof you are also
accepting that SR is bullshit.
Thankyou Moron-y.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 27/08/16 16:11, Michael Moron-y proved yet again that he has no clue:
>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>>> On 23/08/16 05:58, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>>> Throughout this whole discussion, you've stayed in one frame and
>>>> one frame only. And in this one frame E2 and E1 are simultaneous.
>>>> So what?
>>
>>> Idiot! Th0ere are two frames....each rod defines one.
>>
>> Henry, while that may be true, you *still* described everything from

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, even a plant has enough smarts to grow toward the
sunlight and away from darkness, Ralph. Ralph M. Rabbidge, are you
showing me that you don't even have the smarts of a cabbage, Ralph?
Ralph, a cabbage really can't grow toward or away from the light, Ralph,
so a cabbage is your level of intellect, after all, Ralph M.
Ralph, is that why your name rhymes with "cabbage", Ralph Rabbidge?

>> a third observer frame, separate from the frames of either rod. All
>> you did is prove that if two events E1 and E2 are simultaneous in a
>> frame F, the two events are simultaneous in the frame F.

>Idiot! You don't even understand SR. What is your reason for defending it?

Ralph Rabbidge, you have repeatedly demonstrated that it is you who do not
understand SR, Ralph. But Ralph M., that is to be expected of a cabbage-
brain, Ralph.

>According to Einstein, if two events are simultaneous in one frame, they
>are not simultaneous in any other.

No, Ralph Malcolm. Einstein never said that, Ralph. Ralph, what Einstein
did say is "here is the math to figure out if events that are simultaneous
in Frame A are simultaneous or not in Frame B.", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
And Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, even if there was any truth to your claim,
Ralph, it's *still* true that all you did was show that if two events are
simultaneous in a third observer frame, they are simultaneous in the third
observer frame, Ralph.

> By accepting my proof you are also
>accepting that SR is bullshit.

Proving that x=x isn't much of a proof, Ralph.

[rotchm]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:45:19 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 12:06:22 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

> > To measure the length of a moving rod, say, you perform a certain
> > procedure. SR predicts the **value** that you will obtain.
>
> So what is the procedure?

You seriously dont know? It is well described in most relativity books. Have you read any?

[rotchm]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 4:36:13 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> such assertion means that you are comparing material length.

Idiot ken, I ordered you to never use the expression 'material length' again...and here you go using it. There will be consequences. Dont blame me if your computer starts acting up or that you can no longer boot it.

[kenseto]

It is obvious that you don't know either.

[kenseto]

SR says that there is no material contraction but then SRians uses the concept of material length contraction to explain the concept of RoS.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> > You seriously dont know? It is well described in most relativity
> books. Have you read any?

No answer?

[rotchm]

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 1:58:52 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> SR says that there is no material contraction

Another lie by idiot ken.
Idiot ken, show us one SR book that makes such a claim...

It is *you* and only YOU that has used the expression "material length"

> but then SRians uses the concept of material length contraction
> to explain the concept of RoS.

Another lie from idiot ken. So now you resort to explicit lies to defend your wrong points. How pathetic and disgraceful you are to your own kind.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 28/08/16 23:34, rotchm virtually admitted he was a brainwashed idiot:

> It is *you* and only YOU that has used the expression "material
> length"
>
>
>> but then SRians uses the concept of material length contraction to
>> explain the concept of RoS.
>
> Another lie from idiot ken. So now you resort to explicit lies to
> defend your wrong points. How pathetic and disgraceful you are to
> your own kind.

Ken is quite correct here. Without material contraction, the two rod
ends MUST line up at the same absolute instant...and my proof is verified.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 28/08/16 12:59, Michael Moron-y proved that it is a total waste of
time trying to argue with someone who doesn't have the faintest idea of
what the argument is about.

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, with the smarts of a cabbage, have you learned
your lesson yet, Ralph? Or do I need to punish you more, Ralph Rabbidge?

And Ralph, I already pointed out why your so-called "proof" is bogus,
Ralph. Address that, Mr. Rabbidge.

[Odd Bodkin]

True scientists do not dismiss confirmed data.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/26/2016 6:19 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 25/08/16 06:22, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/24/2016 12:15 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>> ...and SR predicts wrongly. However SR correctly predicts that
>>> nothing at all happens to the rods during a speed change.
>>
>> The length changes with speed of the rod relative to the observer.
>> There is no physical interaction happening to the rod to cause that
>> change, but it is nevertheless real and measured.
>>
>> Your statement that "nothing at all happens to the rods" is a
>> statement that is so vague that it is wrong.
>
> Well let me put it another way. A rod is exacly the same rod in every
> respect after it has undergone a speed change.

Flat wrong. Its momentum is different, for example. This is some aspect
of the rod that has changed, and so your statement that it is the same
rod "in every respect" is not valid.

>
>>> Therefore the two ends must line up at the same absolute instant no
>>> matter what their relative speed might be.
>>>
>>> SR's predictions are based entirely on the transforms which are
>>> derived from an assumption that simultaneity is not a physical
>>> effect at all but is defined by what human eyes perceive.
>>
>> Heck no, it has nothing to do with what eyes perceive, in SR.
>
> ...but SR is based on the RoS which is based on what human eyes
> perceive. Didn't you know that?

No, it's not. Thrown chaff ignored.

>
>>> That notion is laughable.
>
> SR is laughable
>
>>
>>
>

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

After all these years, and you still don't understand. Relativity describes
the results of *measurements* following precisely defined protocols. What one
*measures* is very often different from what one *sees*.

How can you remain so ignorant after so many decades of careful explanation?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/28/2016 12:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> SR says that there is no material contraction but then SRians uses the concept of
> material length contraction to explain the concept of RoS.

Books that describe SR never use the term "material length contraction".
Any interpretation that relativistic contraction is material is a
fabrication from your own mind.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:0d019407-c755-4fd2...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 6:19:27 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 25/08/16 06:22, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > Heck no, it has nothing to do with what eyes perceive, in SR.
>
> ...but SR is based on the RoS which is based on what human eyes
> perceive. Didn't you know that?

|After all these years, and you still don't understand. Relativity describes
|the results of *measurements* following precisely defined protocols.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. These "precisely defined
protocols" never existed.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 06/09/16 22:54, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/26/2016 6:19 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>>> ...and SR predicts wrongly. However SR correctly predicts that
>>>> nothing at all happens to the rods during a speed change.
>>>
>>> The length changes with speed of the rod relative to the observer.
>>> There is no physical interaction happening to the rod to cause that
>>> change, but it is nevertheless real and measured.
>>>
>>> Your statement that "nothing at all happens to the rods" is a
>>> statement that is so vague that it is wrong.
>>
>> Well let me put it another way. A rod is exacly the same rod in every
>> respect after it has undergone a speed change.
>
> Flat wrong. Its momentum is different, for example. This is some aspect
> of the rod that has changed, and so your statement that it is the same
> rod "in every respect" is not valid.

Momentum is not an intrinsic property of anything.

[Odd Bodkin]

It's funny how you smoothly glide from "same...in every respect" to
"only intrinsic properties".