RLH

[Sylvia Else]

What are the possibilities?

1) Mental illness.

2) Troll.

3)

Actually, I can't think of a third. Certainly the hypothesis that he's
simply someone whose misunderstood special relativity becomes
increasingly implausible.

I'm strongly wavering towards troll.

Sylvia.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/10/2017 v 11:22 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

I do not think he is simply a troll.
It seems to me he really believes what he says.
It is hard to say what is more sad.

Fools and self-confident ignorants do not doubt.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[RLH]

Ad hom. attacks say more about you than me.

+10, -10 and 10 are different.

Just because you can't see that sqrt(-10) and -sqrt(10) are 2 different things says more about you than me also.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 10:29:35 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 14/10/2017 v 11:22 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
> > What are the possibilities?
> >
> > 1) Mental illness.
> >
> > 2) Troll.
> >
> > 3)
> >
> > Actually, I can't think of a third. Certainly the hypothesis that he's
> > simply someone whose misunderstood special relativity becomes
> > increasingly implausible.
> >
> > I'm strongly wavering towards troll.
> >
> > Sylvia.
>
> I do not think he is simply a troll.
> It seems to me he really believes what he says.
> It is hard to say what is more sad.
>
> Fools and self-confident ignorants do not doubt.

Those who will not see have to crate demons to explain what they know. The fact that it may not be true does not cross their minds.

[RLH]

Let me be even clearer for those who do not understand the subtleties.

+10 and -10 are signed quantities.
10 is an unsigned quantity

vectors are composed of 2 things

magnitude that is an unsigned quantity
vector that is a signed quantity

the only way to multiply a vector is to change the magnitude. It does not change the direction or is in any way concerned with the multiply.

Looks like 3 is "computer geek".

[RLH]

Edit: direction is a signed quantity

[Sylvia Else]

You say these things, but you never explain their alleged relevance. You
don't even try.

Sylvia.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 11:37:19 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > Ad hom. attacks say more about you than me.
> >
> > +10, -10 and 10 are different.
> >
> > Just because you can't see that sqrt(-10) and -sqrt(10) are 2 different things says more about you than me also.
> >
>
> You say these things, but you never explain their alleged relevance. You
> don't even try.

Try thinking about signed and unsigned quantities. In computing it is a rigid requirement all the time (pun).

-10 and +10 are signed.
10 is unsigned.

If you try to treat them as identical your computer will throw a fit.

The only way to turn unsigned in to signed is to create a wrapper, -(10) for instance. You don't get to play directly with the 10, only through the wrapper.

Any changes with regard to +/- do NOT affect the 10. If you calculate that the 10 should change that is separate to any effect you may also need to do to the sign of the wrapper.

[Sylvia Else]

What has this to do with special relativity?

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 14 października 2017 11:29:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> Fools and self-confident ignorants do not doubt.

Said a full-of-doubts halfbrain.

[RLH]

Because most of the equations do not distinguish between -x and -(x).

Thus SR sees limits to sqrt(c^2 - v^2) that are not there.

Make x = c^2 - v^2

Then sqrt(-x) becomes -sqrt(x)

If helps if we use left/right instead of +/- for vectors as that helps reduce confusion.

There is no such thing as sqrt(left x). There is such a thing as left sqrt(x).

[RLH]

I said ad hom. does not effect me.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

It's not for you, anyway. And this time it's not
about you, too.

[RLH]

Ad homs. should not be used, regardless of the target.

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/10/2017 9:56 PM, RLH wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 11:45:24 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14/10/2017 9:43 PM, RLH wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 11:37:19 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> Ad hom. attacks say more about you than me.
>>>>>
>>>>> +10, -10 and 10 are different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you can't see that sqrt(-10) and -sqrt(10) are 2 different things says more about you than me also.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You say these things, but you never explain their alleged relevance. You
>>>> don't even try.
>>>
>>> Try thinking about signed and unsigned quantities. In computing it is a rigid requirement all the time (pun).
>>>
>>> -10 and +10 are signed.
>>> 10 is unsigned.
>>>
>>> If you try to treat them as identical your computer will throw a fit.
>>>
>>> The only way to turn unsigned in to signed is to create a wrapper, -(10) for instance. You don't get to play directly with the 10, only through the wrapper.
>>>
>>> Any changes with regard to +/- do NOT affect the 10. If you calculate that the 10 should change that is separate to any effect you may also need to do to the sign of the wrapper.
>>>
>>
>> What has this to do with special relativity?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Because most of the equations do not distinguish between -x and -(x).
>
> Thus SR sees limits to sqrt(c^2 - v^2) that are not there.
>
> Make x = c^2 - v^2

> Then sqrt(-x) becomes -sqrt(x)

You've already been told that it doesn't. Try squaring both sides

sqrt(-x)^2 = -x

(-sqrt(x))^2 = x

So they're not the same.

>
> If helps if we use left/right instead of +/- for vectors as that helps reduce confusion.

Only for you, I think, and there's little evidence that it does that either.

>
> There is no such thing as sqrt(left x). There is such a thing as left sqrt(x).
>

That is gibberish.

Sylvia.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:07:20 PM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> You've already been told that it doesn't. Try squaring both sides
>
> sqrt(-x)^2 = -x
>
> (-sqrt(x))^2 = x
>
> So they're not the same.

I know what happens if you don't follow the rules.

function(x^2) = x^2
-function(x^2) = -x^2

function(x^2) = x^2
function(-x^2) = x^2

see the differences?

Try plotting a triangle on the left hand side of an +/- plot.

Thus area of a triangle drawn to the right hand side of 0 has the same area as a similar triangle drawn on the left hand side of 0.

> >
> > If helps if we use left/right instead of +/- for vectors as that helps reduce confusion.
>
> Only for you, I think, and there's little evidence that it does that either.
>
> >
> > There is no such thing as sqrt(left x). There is such a thing as left sqrt(x).
> >
>
> That is gibberish.

see above

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

And you're wrong here. Ad homs are the core of
science. One of the reasons why women rarely
participate.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 14-okt-2017 om 11:22 schreef Sylvia Else:

3) Little prat, age 7.

4) Autist of the less gifted kind.
That is, unless you would put autism under (1), on
which the jury is still out.


I don't think that understanding which category he fits
in, will make any difference.

Dirk Vdm

[RLH]

Ad hom. once again. When will you understand that it doesn't effect me or advance your case in any way.

[RLH]

One very good reason for not using ad hom. Science and Mathematics then.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:17:04 PM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Op 14-okt-2017 om 11:22 schreef Sylvia Else:
> > What are the possibilities?
> >
> > 1) Mental illness.
> >
> > 2) Troll.
> >
> > 3)
> >
> > Actually, I can't think of a third. Certainly the hypothesis that he's
> > simply someone whose misunderstood special relativity becomes
> > increasingly implausible.
> >
> > I'm strongly wavering towards troll.
> >
> > Sylvia.
>
> 3) Little prat, age 7.

Wrong.

[RLH]

If I were to draw 2 spheres, squares, triangles, etc. on a piece of paper, how does where I place the 0 on that paper affect their visibility?

For those who think that sqrt(-x) is what is happening are demanding that the ones to the 'left' disappears. As this clearly does not happen something is wrong with SR in a logical sense. Somehow the maths is being applied incorrectly.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 14.10.2017 13.07, skrev Sylvia Else:
> On 14/10/2017 9:56 PM, RLH wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 11:45:24 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 14/10/2017 9:43 PM, RLH wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Try thinking about signed and unsigned quantities. In computing it
>>>> is a rigid requirement all the time (pun).
>>>>
>>>> -10 and +10 are signed.
>>>> 10 is unsigned.
>>>>
>>>> If you try to treat them as identical your computer will throw a fit.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to turn unsigned in to signed is to create a wrapper,
>>>> -(10) for instance. You don't get to play directly with the 10, only
>>>> through the wrapper.
>>>>
>>>> Any changes with regard to +/- do NOT affect the 10. If you
>>>> calculate that the 10 should change that is separate to any effect
>>>> you may also need to do to the sign of the wrapper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What has this to do with special relativity?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Because most of the equations do not distinguish between -x and -(x).
>>
>> Thus SR sees limits to sqrt(c^2 - v^2) that are not there.
>>
>> Make x = c^2 - v^2
>> Then sqrt(-x) becomes -sqrt(x)
>>

>> If helps if we use left/right instead of +/- for vectors as that helps
>> reduce confusion.
>>

>> There is no such thing as sqrt(left x). There is such a thing as left
>> sqrt(x).
>>
>
> That is gibberish.
>
> Sylvia.
>

It is beyond gibberish. It's 1).

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

As I've said, you're wrong. Ad homs are the core
of science. And mathematics is much, much less
important than you think.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> It is beyond gibberish. It's [mental illness].

As I have indicated before, I do not think it is helpful or even appropriate
for knowledgeable people to attempt to explain away another person’s
convictions, however outlandish they may seem, by such remote "diagnosis".

IOW, we are better than this, better than the trolls and crackpots¹ who
frequently use these means to deride what they cannot or do not want to
understand.

________
¹ AFAIK, that is not designated a medical condition
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 14 października 2017 15:14:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > It is beyond gibberish. It's [mental illness].
>
> As I have indicated before, I do not think it is helpful or even appropriate
> for knowledgeable people to attempt to explain away another person’s
> convictions, however outlandish they may seem, by such remote "diagnosis".

Fortunately, there is no knowledgeable people around.

>
> IOW, we are better than this, better than the trolls and crackpots¹ who
> frequently use these means to deride what they cannot or do not want to
> understand.

No, poor idiot. Neither you nor your fellows are any
way better. You only imagine, as expected from a
fanatic idiot.

[Odd Bodkin]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Dne 14/10/2017 v 11:22 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
>> What are the possibilities?
>>
>> 1) Mental illness.
>>
>> 2) Troll.
>>
>> 3)
>>
>> Actually, I can't think of a third. Certainly the hypothesis that he's
>> simply someone whose misunderstood special relativity becomes
>> increasingly implausible.
>>
>> I'm strongly wavering towards troll.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I do not think he is simply a troll.
> It seems to me he really believes what he says.
> It is hard to say what is more sad.
>
> Fools and self-confident ignorants do not doubt.
>

The only true trolls here today are Henry Wilson and Starmaker. There are a
bunch of others who have mixtures of mental issues as well. RLH is in the
latter.

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

[Odd Bodkin]

Does it interest you at all that the way computers deal with numbers does
not reflect the way that other fields deal with them, and certainly does
not reflect any physical reality.

[Odd Bodkin]

This isn’t about advancing any case or about discussing a topic in physics.
It’s about whether you’re worth talking to.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 14-okt-2017 om 15:51 schreef Odd Bodkin:

Perhaps more like about whether talking to him is possible to
begin with.

Dirk Vdm

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

But, of course, noone should mistake "physical reality"
with real reality observed by real observers. Right,
poor idiot?

[Dono,]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 2:22:32 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> What are the possibilities?
>
> 1) Mental illness.
>
> 2) Troll.
>
> 3)
>
> Actually, I can't think of a third. Certainly the hypothesis that he's
> simply someone whose misunderstood special relativity becomes
> increasingly implausible.
>
> I'm strongly wavering towards troll.
>
> Sylvia.

3) Mentally ill+ troll + imbecile +pathological liar

[Dono,]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 3:56:23 AM UTC-7, RLH wrote:
>
> Make x = c^2 - v^2
>
> Then sqrt(-x) becomes -sqrt(x)
>

Nope. Utter cretin.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

Thank you for proving my point.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 14 października 2017 16:20:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>> It is beyond gibberish. It's [mental illness].
> >>
> >> As I have indicated before, I do not think it is helpful or even appropriate
> >> for knowledgeable people to attempt to explain away another person’s
> >> convictions, however outlandish they may seem, by such remote "diagnosis".
> >
> > Fortunately, there is no knowledgeable people around.
> >
> >> IOW, we are better than this, better than the trolls and crackpots¹ who
> >> frequently use these means to deride what they cannot or do not want to
> >> understand.
> >
> > No, poor idiot. Neither you nor your fellows are any
> > way better. You only imagine, as expected from a
> > fanatic idiot.
>
> Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving my point, poor idiot.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 2:14:01 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > It is beyond gibberish. It's [mental illness].
>
> As I have indicated before, I do not think it is helpful or even appropriate
> for knowledgeable people to attempt to explain away another person’s
> convictions, however outlandish they may seem, by such remote "diagnosis".
>
> IOW, we are better than this, better than the trolls and crackpots¹ who
> frequently use these means to deride what they cannot or do not want to
> understand.
>
> ________
> ¹ AFAIK, that is not designated a medical condition

Thank you for that.

I may disagree with your conclusions but I do not dismiss them outright, I do disagree with how you arrived at them.

I would appreciate a rebuttal of the observations I have made. Not an ad hom. attack. on them also.

If you follow the rest of the 'conversation' you will see I have made a logical observation about how the maths is being applied.

sqrt(-x) is clearly not the same as -sqrt(x).

sqrt(-x) is imaginary, -sqrt(x).is real.

Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0 is what is happening.

The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR that correctly reflects both maths, logic and observations.

[RLH]

First you say that ad hom. dissuades women and then you say it is inevitable.

I'm not sure that is helpful in any way.

The status quo. is not always the best solution. Change is to be required, not accepted as being impossible.

[RLH]

Not applying logic correctly is always a total failure. The fact that you don't understand and call it gibberish is perhaps just because your logic is faulty.

You would have things disappear if an x turns into -x as placed in one dimension. That is very clearly NOT the case.

The opposite direction of +(function(x)) is obviously -(function(x)). x is an unsigned quantity, such as distance. You can't have a negative distance. You can have a negative direction of that distance. Easy to miss if you don't look closely and apparently fatal for mathematicians and scientists on this forum (and elsewhere).

[RLH]

Still with the ad hom. I see.

[Nos Etrakis]

Poutnik wrote:

>> I'm strongly wavering towards troll.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>

> I do not think he is simply a troll.
> It seems to me he really believes what he says. It is hard to say what

> is more sad. Fools and self-confident ignorants do not doubt.

Of course not you.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:
> If you follow the rest of the 'conversation' you will see I have made a
> logical observation about how the maths is being applied.

I can see there that you have made a fallacious argument based on how you
think it is being applied.

> sqrt(-x) is clearly not the same as -sqrt(x).

In many ways this is true.

> sqrt(-x) is imaginary, -sqrt(x).is real.

That depends on the value of x. If x is real and negative, then
Im(sqrt(-x)) = 0.

But then, if you know this, why have claimed

| Then sqrt(-x) becomes -sqrt(x)

in <f04706dd-5435-4ac1...@googlegroups.com>?

> Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0 is what is
> happening.

What is that supposed to mean?

> The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR that correctly
> reflects both maths, logic and observations.

It has been shown that it is not yours.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:
> Not applying logic correctly is always a total failure.

You are admitting your mistake?

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:21:25 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> RLH wrote:
> > If you follow the rest of the 'conversation' you will see I have made a
> > logical observation about how the maths is being applied.
>
> I can see there that you have made a fallacious argument based on how you
> think it is being applied.
>
> > sqrt(-x) is clearly not the same as -sqrt(x).
>
> In many ways this is true.
>
> > sqrt(-x) is imaginary, -sqrt(x).is real.
>
> That depends on the value of x. If x is real and negative, then
> Im(sqrt(-x)) = 0.

IF!

How do you create a negative distance, seeing as distance can only have positive values?

> But then, if you know this, why have claimed
>
> | Then sqrt(-x) becomes -sqrt(x)
>
> in <f04706dd-5435-4ac1...@googlegroups.com>?
>
> > Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0 is what is
> > happening.
>
> What is that supposed to mean?

I have tried to explain on many occasions. Non-one will accept the point of view that I hold.

> > The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR that correctly
> > reflects both maths, logic and observations.
>
> It has been shown that it is not yours.

Of course I would disagree. Logicians often disagree with mathematicians and scientists about how they do what they do.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:22:45 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> RLH wrote:
> > Not applying logic correctly is always a total failure.
>
> You are admitting your mistake?

No. Pointing out the assumptions in yours.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:21:25 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>> sqrt(-x) is imaginary, -sqrt(x).is real.
>>
>> That depends on the value of x. If x is real and negative, then
>> Im(sqrt(-x)) = 0.
>
> IF!
>
> How do you create a negative distance, seeing as distance can only have positive values?

You have not yet made clear how you arrived at the assumption that “x”
signifies a distance in the first place. Before you do that, there is no
point in discussing your ideas based on that assumption. Ex falso quodlibet.

>>> Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0 is what is
>>> happening.
>> What is that supposed to mean?
>
> I have tried to explain on many occasions.

I do not care. I have asked you a question *now*. Why do you not answer it?

> Non-one will accept the point of view that I hold.

Tough luck.

>>> The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR that correctly
>>> reflects both maths, logic and observations.
>> It has been shown that it is not yours.
>
> Of course I would disagree.

That does not change the fact.

> Logicians often disagree with mathematicians and scientists about how
> they do what they do.

Cite the extraordinary evidence that supports this extraordinary claim.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 5:03:28 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> RLH wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:21:25 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> RLH wrote:
> >>> sqrt(-x) is imaginary, -sqrt(x).is real.
> >>
> >> That depends on the value of x. If x is real and negative, then
> >> Im(sqrt(-x)) = 0.
> >
> > IF!
> >
> > How do you create a negative distance, seeing as distance can only have positive values?
>
> You have not yet made clear how you arrived at the assumption that “x”
> signifies a distance in the first place. Before you do that, there is no
> point in discussing your ideas based on that assumption. Ex falso quodlibet.

Well distance covered over a time period is what is meant by velocity in this case I thought.

The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied to them.
It doesn't matter about the particular case, it is a general statement.

> >>> Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0 is what is
> >>> happening.
> >> What is that supposed to mean?
> >
> > I have tried to explain on many occasions.
>
> I do not care. I have asked you a question *now*. Why do you not answer it?

Perhaps you ought to step back and think a bit more carefully. (was that too harsh?)

When you draw a scalar value, you only get a 'right hand' plot.
When you draw a non-scalar value, you get a symmetrical plot around 0.

Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand' view with things moving to the right. What happens if, on the same piece of paper, you also draw one moving to the right and one moving to the left?

So negative velocities are drawn 'leftwards' with positive velocities drawn 'rightwards'.

Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both shortened to velocity.
People switch between the 2 without the care that is needed when changing between them.

So there is no -'velocity magnitude' other than by using 'velocity direction'.

Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude' and then apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so be it.

> > Non-one will accept the point of view that I hold.
>
> Tough luck.

Never give up :-)

> >>> The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR that correctly
> >>> reflects both maths, logic and observations.
> >> It has been shown that it is not yours.
> >
> > Of course I would disagree.
>
> That does not change the fact.

Which fact is that?

> > Logicians often disagree with mathematicians and scientists about how
> > they do what they do.
>
> Cite the extraordinary evidence that supports this extraordinary claim.

Well let's start with this one!

[Odd Bodkin]

RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 5:03:28 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:21:25 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> RLH wrote:
>>>>> sqrt(-x) is imaginary, -sqrt(x).is real.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on the value of x. If x is real and negative, then
>>>> Im(sqrt(-x)) = 0.
>>>
>>> IF!
>>>
>>> How do you create a negative distance, seeing as distance can only have positive values?
>>
>> You have not yet made clear how you arrived at the assumption that “x”
>> signifies a distance in the first place. Before you do that, there is no
>> point in discussing your ideas based on that assumption. Ex falso quodlibet.
>
> Well distance covered over a time period is what is meant by velocity in
> this case I thought.
>
> The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied to them.
> It doesn't matter about the particular case, it is a general statement.

No, it is not a general statement. It is a statement specific to computer
programming perhaps. In mathematics, there is no variable signifying a
real-valued quantity that cannot have a minus sign denoting “negative” in
front of it. This is because the real numbers are a mathematical ring.

Do not make the mistake of leveraging your programming concepts to make
general statements about reality.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 5:33:17 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> No, it is not a general statement. It is a statement specific to computer
> programming perhaps. In mathematics, there is no variable signifying a
> real-valued quantity that cannot have a minus sign denoting “negative” in
> front of it. This is because the real numbers are a mathematical ring.

Applied maths is no different to Pure maths. All is does is implement it.

> Do not make the mistake of leveraging your programming concepts to make
> general statements about reality.

Do not dismiss problems with Applied to being solely down to the application it has of Pure, rather than a potential problems with the underlying Pure maths.

If one considers distance, mass and time periods, then they are all unsigned values in a Newtonian world.

Time periods can be either thought of a signed or unsigned depending on usage of course. The usual usage in this case is unsigned (i.e. we are only talking about time periods later than 'now').

Relative distance, relative velocity, relative mass and relative time periods are all signed.

So the potential problem is with how SR changes unsigned into signed.

As you cannot, by definition, add a - to an unsigned value unless you convert it to a signed value.

Hence, velocity magnitude which is unsigned can only be changed into signed by adding velocity vector.

You can only take square roots of the velocity magnitude values, not the directions.

And that is where the problems occur I suspect.

[RLH]

EDIT:

Hence, velocity magnitude which is unsigned can only be changed into signed by adding velocity direction

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 4:21:25 PM UTC+1, Thomas
>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> RLH wrote:
>>>>> sqrt(-x) is imaginary, -sqrt(x).is real.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on the value of x. If x is real and negative, then
>>>> Im(sqrt(-x)) = 0.
>>>
>>> IF!
>>>
>>> How do you create a negative distance, seeing as distance can only
>>> have positive values?
>>
>> You have not yet made clear how you arrived at the assumption that “x”
>> signifies a distance in the first place. Before you do that, there is
>> no point in discussing your ideas based on that assumption. Ex falso
>> quodlibet.
>
> Well distance covered over a time period is what is meant by velocity in
> this case I thought.

That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific) definition. The
*actual* definition of velocity is that it is the *change* of *position* per
*change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change* of *position* per unit time.

Position x⃗ is a vector, so is the change of position ∆x⃗, and so is
velocity v⃗. One defines the *speed* v of an object as the magnitude of its
velocity –

v = |v⃗|

–, and its *average speed* in a time interval ∆t as

v = |∆x⃗∕∆t|

where

∆x = x⃗₂ − x⃗₁
∆t = t₂ − t₁,

x⃗₁ and x⃗₂ are positions of the object at the beginning and the end of the
considered motion, and t₁ and t₂ are the associated times, respectively.

That is still not the whole picture, but I will let you chew on it first.

> The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied to them.

Not even wrong.

> It doesn't matter about the particular case, it is a general statement.

Indeed, that is not-even-wrong nonsense in general, too.

>>>>> Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0 is
>>>>> what is happening.
>>>> What is that supposed to mean?
>>> I have tried to explain on many occasions.
>> I do not care. I have asked you a question *now*. Why do you not
>> answer it?
>
> Perhaps you ought to step back and think a bit more carefully. (was that
> too harsh?)

Given what you have posted here so far, it was inappropriate. You need to
learn humility.

> When you draw a scalar value, you only get a 'right hand' plot.
> When you draw a non-scalar value, you get a symmetrical plot around 0.

Not even wrong.

> Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand' view with
> things moving to the right. What happens if, on the same piece of paper,
> you also draw one moving to the right and one moving to the left?

Then you have drawn two light clocks. (That was easy.)

> So negative velocities are drawn 'leftwards' with positive velocities
> drawn 'rightwards'.

One can choose that convention, yes.

> Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both shortened to
> velocity.

Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude, “speed”,
interchangably. You have just done it.

> People switch between the 2 without the care that is needed
> when changing between them.

For example you, just now.

> So there is no -'velocity magnitude' other than by using 'velocity
> direction'.

Not even wrong.

> Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude' and then
> apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so be it.

Ex falso quodlibet.

>>>>> The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR that
>>>>> correctly reflects both maths, logic and observations.
>>>> It has been shown that it is not yours.
>>> Of course I would disagree.
>> That does not change the fact.
>
> Which fact is that?

That – to quote one of my favorite characters – “your argument is strewn
with gaping defects in logic.”

>>> Logicians often disagree with mathematicians and scientists about
>>> how they do what they do.
>> Cite the extraordinary evidence that supports this extraordinary
>> claim.
>
> Well let's start with this one!

I do not see this as evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, except of your
misconceptions and your flawed argument.

If, as it seems, you claim to be one of those “logicians” you referred to,
then you should know what “ex falso quodlibet” means. And you *are*
proceeding from false assumptions.

[Poutnik]

Dne 14/10/2017 v 19:03 RLH napsal(a):

> EDIT:
>
> Hence, velocity magnitude which is unsigned can only be changed into signed by adding velocity direction
>

Physics does not consider real quantities as signed nor unsigned,
that is just way of the computer implementation of integer numbers.
Neither usual implementations of real numbers use signed reals.

Real vector components can have any real values,
while the magnitude of vector is non negative,
being the square root of sum of squares.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Odd Bodkin]

None of what you say above is accurate.
You can start to talk about the language of physics if you use “magnitude”
rather than “unsigned value”. But even under that convention there are
cases where a magnitude will be written with a minus sign in front of it,
such as -x where x is a positive-definite magnitude.
If you see a quantity v, you will have to know from notation or context
whether that variable denotes a vector velocity, a velocity component
(which is a signed real number), or a speed (which is a positive-definite
real number).

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific) definition. The
> *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the *change* of *position* per
> *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change* of *position* per unit time.

Similar words, same meaning.

You say change to position, I say total change in position.
You change in time, I say total change in time.

> That is still not the whole picture, but I will let you chew on it first.

See above.

> > The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied to them.
>
> Not even wrong.

You, as a programmer, should know that any implementation of that concept applies as just that.

signed and unsigned are practical implementations of just that concept.

> > It doesn't matter about the particular case, it is a general statement.
>
> Indeed, that is not-even-wrong nonsense in general, too.

See above.

> >>>>> Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0 is
> >>>>> what is happening.
> >>>> What is that supposed to mean?
> >>> I have tried to explain on many occasions.
> >> I do not care. I have asked you a question *now*. Why do you not
> >> answer it?
> >
> > Perhaps you ought to step back and think a bit more carefully. (was that
> > too harsh?)
>
> Given what you have posted here so far, it was inappropriate. You need to
> learn humility.

Considering the ad hom., even from you, I think that is a little harsh a reply too.

> > When you draw a scalar value, you only get a 'right hand' plot.
> > When you draw a non-scalar value, you get a symmetrical plot around 0.
>
> Not even wrong.

Have you ever drawn a graph? Ever drawn a 0 at the centre between + and - on a axis?

> > Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand' view with
> > things moving to the right. What happens if, on the same piece of paper,
> > you also draw one moving to the right and one moving to the left?
>
> Then you have drawn two light clocks. (That was easy.)

Now try and calculate the magnitude of hypotenuse of the two triangles. Given that one has a -v and the other a +v.

> > So negative velocities are drawn 'leftwards' with positive velocities
> > drawn 'rightwards'.
>
> One can choose that convention, yes.

That is the one normally used.

> > Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both shortened to
> > velocity.
>
> Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude, “speed”,
> interchangably. You have just done it.

No, I have described a vector in applied maths. I was describing that speed (vector magnitude) and vector direction are 2 separate quantities.

I was travelling at 50mph towards home (at v velocity if you wish as the alternative).

> > People switch between the 2 without the care that is needed
> > when changing between them.
>
> For example you, just now.

Nope. See above.

> > So there is no -'velocity magnitude' other than by using 'velocity
> > direction'.
>
> Not even wrong.

See above.

> > Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude' and then
> > apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so be it.
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.

See above.

> >>>>> The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR that
> >>>>> correctly reflects both maths, logic and observations.
> >>>> It has been shown that it is not yours.
> >>> Of course I would disagree.
> >> That does not change the fact.
> >
> > Which fact is that?
>
> That – to quote one of my favorite characters – “your argument is strewn
> with gaping defects in logic.”

Or lack of understanding in the audience.

> >>> Logicians often disagree with mathematicians and scientists about
> >>> how they do what they do.
> >> Cite the extraordinary evidence that supports this extraordinary
> >> claim.
> >
> > Well let's start with this one!
>
> I do not see this as evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, except of your
> misconceptions and your flawed argument.
>
> If, as it seems, you claim to be one of those “logicians” you referred to,
> then you should know what “ex falso quodlibet” means. And you *are*
> proceeding from false assumptions.

See above.

And please do drop all the ad. hom. It does you no favours.

[RLH]

Sure. Different words. Different discipline. Are the concepts the same? Pretty much so.

If you will add things that cannot be reproduced in the real world (physics) then all bets are off.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:31:04 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 14/10/2017 v 19:03 RLH napsal(a):
> > EDIT:
> >
> > Hence, velocity magnitude which is unsigned can only be changed into signed by adding velocity direction
> >
>
> Physics does not consider real quantities as signed nor unsigned,
> that is just way of the computer implementation of integer numbers.
> Neither usual implementations of real numbers use signed reals.
>
> Real vector components can have any real values,
> while the magnitude of vector is non negative,
> being the square root of sum of squares.

Different words. Different discipline. The concepts are identical.

[RLH]

I suppose I could add there that there is a difference between pure physics and applied physics too.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:36:07 PM UTC+1, RLH wrote:

EDIT:

You say change in position, I say total change in position.
You say change in a time period, I say total change in a time period.

Must be precise after all.

[RLH]

Time for a roll call then.

Chose one or more as required

1. Pure Maths
2. Applied maths (including computing)
3. Pure physics
4. Applied physics (including Engineers)
5. Logicians
6. Applied logicians (including computing)

Put me down for 2, 3 and 6

[RLH]

Put me down for 2, 4 and 6.

It is such a long time since I first played on newsgroups. (yes Jemima, I was around before they started - I even pseudo moderated one for a time) that I forgot, though I am slowly remembering, how to deal effectively with ad hom.

EDIT

[RLH]

Also, can we agree to consult a mental dictionary in our heads, instead of actually having to create such a thing, before responding to something.

After all you know your own discipline very well, it may just be that someone from a different discipline may have used slightly wrongs ones, and arguing about translations are a pointless exercise. Much easier to see if you can get to understand what they meant rather than what they (incorrectly?) said.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific) definition.
>> The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the *change* of
>> *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change* of *position*
>> per unit time.
>
> Similar words, same meaning.

The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_ have the
same meaning.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>

A *distance* is, as you indicated correctly, zero or positive if the space
in which it is measured has a symmetric bilinear form (an inner product)
that is positive-definite. (That does not hold for all spaces.)

But a *change* of a value, a *difference*, can be *both* positive and
negative. In an ordered field 𝔽, the following holds for all x₁, x₂ ∈ 𝔽:

(x₁ > x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ < 0)
(x₁ = x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ = 0)
(x₁ < x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ > 0)

Do you agree to that?

> You say change to position, I say total change in position.

What you are saying is – as Wolfgang Pauli had so aptly put it − such a
nonsense that it is not even wrong. You are using terms without considering
their (agreed-on) meaning. You are *never* going to *understand* any of
this that way.

> You change in time, I say total change in time.

Same there.

>> That is still not the whole picture, but I will let you chew on it
>> first.
>
> See above.

That was already too much for you you chew on?

>>> The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied to
>>> them.
>> Not even wrong.
>
> You, as a programmer,

I consider myself, among other things, a _software developer_, but I’ll bite.

> should know that any implementation of that concept applies as just
> that.

That sentence does not even have a meaning. You are making (up) word salad
and pretend that it has a meaning. That way lies madness.

> signed and unsigned are practical implementations of just that concept.

Which concept?

>>>>>>> Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0
>>>>>>> is what is happening.
>>>>>> What is that supposed to mean?
>>>>> I have tried to explain on many occasions.
>>>> I do not care. I have asked you a question *now*. Why do you not
>>>> answer it?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you ought to step back and think a bit more carefully. (was
>>> that too harsh?)
>> Given what you have posted here so far, it was inappropriate. You need
>> to learn humility.
>
> Considering the ad hom., even from you, I think that is a little harsh a
> reply too.

There was no /ad hominem/ argument from me to you. If someone tells you
that you are mistaken, that you have written something that does not
make sense, has no discernible meaning, that is _not_ an offense. It is
a comment and a warning sign that you should take seriously because it
points out a potential flaw in your argument.

>>> When you draw a scalar value, you only get a 'right hand' plot. When
>>> you draw a non-scalar value, you get a symmetrical plot around 0.
>> Not even wrong.
>
> Have you ever drawn a graph? Ever drawn a 0 at the centre between + and
> - on a axis?

Plenty. Some of them can be found online. I am developing a LaTeX2ε
package for relativistic calculations and plots; I have just made an
important improvement to it that allows one to draw skewed (moving frame)
temporal and spatial axes easily.

>>> Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand' view
>>> with things moving to the right. What happens if, on the same piece
>>> of paper, you also draw one moving to the right and one moving to the
>>> left?
>> Then you have drawn two light clocks. (That was easy.)
>
> Now try and calculate the magnitude of hypotenuse of the two triangles.
> Given that one has a -v and the other a +v.

Ex falso quodlibet.

If you are referring to the paths of the light in the rest frame and the
moving frame – it is really difficult for a knowledgeable person to discern
what you *might* mean when you are talking about things, due to your
word-salad terminology –, there are (at least) *two* hypothenuses then,
_not_ one:

:. .:
: `. .' :
c ∆t : `. Hypothenuse 1 Hypothenuse 2 .' : c ∆t
:-. `. .' .-:
:. : `. .' : .:
'---------` '---------'
v ∆t' v ∆t'

>>> So negative velocities are drawn 'leftwards' with positive
>>> velocities drawn 'rightwards'.
>> One can choose that convention, yes.
>
> That is the one normally used.

If one uses “velocity” instead of the proper term for this quantity, _speed_.

>>> Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both shortened
>>> to velocity.
>>
>> Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude, “speed”,
>> interchangably. You have just done it.
>
> No, I have described a vector in applied maths.

You claim to employ logical argument, so the following should not come as a
surprise to you:

1. Vectors do not have a sign.
2. Velocity is a vector.
3. Therefore, velocity does not have a sign.
4. Therefore, there are no “negative velocities”.

> I was describing that speed (vector magnitude) and vector direction are 2
> separate quantities.

They are, and you have muddled it, whilst claiming and complaining that
others would make the very same mistake as you. /Honi soit qui mal y pense./

> I was travelling at 50mph towards home (at v velocity if you wish as the
> alternative).

You really should not think that you know physics just because you can read
off the tachometer of a vehicle. Also, you should learn about the metric
system (that is used in science and in the majority of countries of this
planet).

>>> People switch between the 2 without the care that is needed when
>>> changing between them.
>> For example you, just now.
>
> Nope.

Yes you did.

> See above.

Exactly.

>>> Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude' and
>>> then apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so be it.
>> Ex falso quodlibet.
>
> See above.

Argumentum ad nauseam.

>>>>>>> The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR
>>>>>>> that correctly reflects both maths, logic and observations.
>>>>>> It has been shown that it is not yours.
>>>>> Of course I would disagree.
>>>> That does not change the fact.
>>> Which fact is that?
>> That – to quote one of my favorite characters – “your argument is
>> strewn with gaping defects in logic.”
>
> Or lack of understanding in the audience.

Is it more likely that you, who *evidentially* does not know physics, are
wrong about physics, or that people who have *studied* physics are wrong
about it?

[Odd Bodkin]

“Pretty much.” Not enough to prevent you from making some basic mistakes
having to do with the distinctions.

>
> If you will add things that cannot be reproduced in the real world
> (physics) then all bets are off.
>

Nobody is adding things that can’t be reproduced in the real world.
Programming’s lexicon doesn’t span all things that are in the real world.
Obviously.

[Odd Bodkin]

You can’t claim 3, sorry. You’ve made too many simple mistakes in that
arena already.

[Odd Bodkin]

And do you get that if you want to have a sensible discussion about
physics, how important it is to learn the language specific to physics? And
are you aware of what you’d need to do to achieve that?

I’m really disappointed at how many programmers come here thinking, I
already know everything I need to know to competently discuss physics.

[Nos Etrakis]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> RLH wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> Lahn wrote:
>>> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific)
>>> definition.
>>> The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the *change* of
>>> *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change* of *position*
>>> per unit time.
>>
>> Similar words, same meaning.
>
> The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_ have
> the same meaning.

You are an idiot. He is perfectly right here. And for consistency you
should have it as a "change of unit position per per unit time", which
proves you don't know what is going on. Neither photographic proofs,
consequently, that they allowed you inside that Large Hadron Collider.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:04:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> RLH wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific) definition.
> >> The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the *change* of
> >> *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change* of *position*
> >> per unit time.
> >
> > Similar words, same meaning.
>
> The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_ have the
> same meaning.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>
>
> A *distance* is, as you indicated correctly, zero or positive if the space
> in which it is measured has a symmetric bilinear form (an inner product)
> that is positive-definite. (That does not hold for all spaces.)
>
> But a *change* of a value, a *difference*, can be *both* positive and
> negative. In an ordered field 𝔽, the following holds for all x₁, x₂ ∈ 𝔽:
>
> (x₁ > x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ < 0)
> (x₁ = x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ = 0)
> (x₁ < x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ > 0)
>
> Do you agree to that?

What a fancy way to say direction. But if that is what you require, I'll try and remember.

> > You say change to position, I say total change in position.
>
> What you are saying is – as Wolfgang Pauli had so aptly put it − such a
> nonsense that it is not even wrong. You are using terms without considering
> their (agreed-on) meaning. You are *never* going to *understand* any of
> this that way.

Darn it. And I thought I was being sufficiently precise.

> > You change in time, I say total change in time.
>
> Same there.
>
> >> That is still not the whole picture, but I will let you chew on it
> >> first.
> >
> > See above.
>
> That was already too much for you you chew on?

Nope, Just saying the same things over and over is so time consuming.

> >>> The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied to
> >>> them.
> >> Not even wrong.
> >
> > You, as a programmer,
>
> I consider myself, among other things, a _software developer_, but I’ll bite.

You want to play, let's play

I see your '_software developer_' and raise a '_System Designer with MSc (Dist) for many, many years_' in return. Could have been a Dr but there was no easy path from an MSc to DR only MPhil. The University did ask me to do some consultation for them though, but even they could not find the bursary for the course and I couldn't find the time.

> > should know that any implementation of that concept applies as just
> > that.
>
> That sentence does not even have a meaning. You are making (up) word salad
> and pretend that it has a meaning. That way lies madness.

Looks like I need to more specific. Concepts are ideas. They can be manifested in many ways. Choose your own. I have mine.

> > signed and unsigned are practical implementations of just that concept.
>
> Which concept?

The concept of remembering to get an update to my 'Babble Fish' to include a 'discipline to discipline module' added to it now as it is for service for updates to its 'language to language module'.

> >>>>>>> Placing 2 shapes on a piece of paper and then choosing a 0
> >>>>>>> is what is happening.
> >>>>>> What is that supposed to mean?
> >>>>> I have tried to explain on many occasions.
> >>>> I do not care. I have asked you a question *now*. Why do you not
> >>>> answer it?
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps you ought to step back and think a bit more carefully. (was
> >>> that too harsh?)
> >> Given what you have posted here so far, it was inappropriate. You need
> >> to learn humility.
> >
> > Considering the ad hom., even from you, I think that is a little harsh a
> > reply too.
>
> There was no /ad hominem/ argument from me to you. If someone tells you
> that you are mistaken, that you have written something that does not
> make sense, has no discernible meaning, that is _not_ an offense. It is
> a comment and a warning sign that you should take seriously because it
> points out a potential flaw in your argument.

A man who doesn't call insults an ad hom. attack. But I'm sure you can defend that logically or otherwise.

> >>> When you draw a scalar value, you only get a 'right hand' plot. When
> >>> you draw a non-scalar value, you get a symmetrical plot around 0.
> >> Not even wrong.
> >
> > Have you ever drawn a graph? Ever drawn a 0 at the centre between + and
> > - on a axis?
>
> Plenty. Some of them can be found online. I am developing a LaTeX2ε
> package for relativistic calculations and plots; I have just made an
> important improvement to it that allows one to draw skewed (moving frame)
> temporal and spatial axes easily.

I'll store that currently unneeded detail.

Thank you for confirming that you did understand what I said,

> >>> Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand' view
> >>> with things moving to the right. What happens if, on the same piece
> >>> of paper, you also draw one moving to the right and one moving to the
> >>> left?
> >> Then you have drawn two light clocks. (That was easy.)
> >
> > Now try and calculate the magnitude of hypotenuse of the two triangles.
> > Given that one has a -v and the other a +v.
>
> Ex falso quodlibet.

Ah how easy it is to ignore the support for the point well made.

> If you are referring to the paths of the light in the rest frame and the
> moving frame – it is really difficult for a knowledgeable person to discern
> what you *might* mean when you are talking about things, due to your
> word-salad terminology –, there are (at least) *two* hypothenuses then,
> _not_ one:
>
> :. .:
> : `. .' :
> c ∆t : `. Hypothenuse 1 Hypothenuse 2 .' : c ∆t
> :-. `. .' .-:
> :. : `. .' : .:
> '---------` '---------'
> v ∆t' v ∆t'

Thank you for the ascii art. Would you like to compare it to the one I previously provided that used plain -v and +v and c for the axis? You forgot to say which dt you were using so that real figures could be plugged in.

> >>> So negative velocities are drawn 'leftwards' with positive
> >>> velocities drawn 'rightwards'.
> >> One can choose that convention, yes.
> >
> > That is the one normally used.
>
> If one uses “velocity” instead of the proper term for this quantity, _speed_.

Damn, I need that Babel Fish.

> >>> Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both shortened
> >>> to velocity.
> >>
> >> Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude, “speed”,
> >> interchangably. You have just done it.
> >
> > No, I have described a vector in applied maths.

See any computer language API for a description of vectors in Logic. 2 fields of 'Magnitude' (unsigned) and 'Direction' (signed').

> You claim to employ logical argument, so the following should not come as a
> surprise to you:
>
> 1. Vectors do not have a sign.
> 2. Velocity is a vector.
> 3. Therefore, velocity does not have a sign.
> 4. Therefore, there are no “negative velocities”.

See above. My discipline that I am speaking from, my rules.

> > I was describing that speed (vector magnitude) and vector direction are 2
> > separate quantities.
>
> They are, and you have muddled it, whilst claiming and complaining that
> others would make the very same mistake as you. /Honi soit qui mal y pense./

Ah French. Despite having a long term French girlfriend, when visiting France this year, most of the people we met, from her Father and some elderly friends onwards including a fairly well known artist, they mostly decided to speak in English rather than try to understand my appalling French. Mind you, they wanted to communicate.

> > I was travelling at 50mph towards home (at v velocity if you wish as the
> > alternative).
>
> You really should not think that you know physics just because you can read
> off the tachometer of a vehicle. Also, you should learn about the metric
> system (that is used in science and in the majority of countries of this
> planet).

I can read the taco and the speedometer quite well thank you.

Would you like things in mph, kph, or in something else.

I was travelling at a velocity of 80kph (50mph) towards home. etc.

> >>> People switch between the 2 without the care that is needed when
> >>> changing between them.
> >> For example you, just now.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Yes you did.
>
> > See above.
>
> Exactly.

Do you really need the copy and paste?

> >>> Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude' and
> >>> then apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so be it.
> >> Ex falso quodlibet.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Argumentum ad nauseam.

Ad hom. (passive)

> >>>>>>> The question is which is the correct interpretation of SR
> >>>>>>> that correctly reflects both maths, logic and observations.
> >>>>>> It has been shown that it is not yours.
> >>>>> Of course I would disagree.
> >>>> That does not change the fact.
> >>> Which fact is that?
> >> That – to quote one of my favorite characters – “your argument is
> >> strewn with gaping defects in logic.”
> >
> > Or lack of understanding in the audience.
>
> Is it more likely that you, who *evidentially* does not know physics, are
> wrong about physics, or that people who have *studied* physics are wrong
> about it?

Your turn.

[RLH]

There is a message with an edit from before your post that corrected the typo. Damn fingers.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:44:21 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Sure. Different words. Different discipline. Are the concepts the same? Pretty much so.
>
> “Pretty much.” Not enough to prevent you from making some basic mistakes
> having to do with the distinctions.

Damn I need that 'Babel Fish module very urgently.

> >
> > If you will add things that cannot be reproduced in the real world
> > (physics) then all bets are off.
> >
>
> Nobody is adding things that can’t be reproduced in the real world.
> Programming’s lexicon doesn’t span all things that are in the real world.
> Obviously.

If you can define it, I can implement it. Turns out it is quite tricky to do well. Both the definition and the implementation. I have qualifications in the later. I need support form you for the former (in terms I can implement).

[RLH]

As I said, you define it in implementable terms, I'll do the implementation.

[RLH]

Shorthand's are allowed, provided you have defined them first.

[Odd Bodkin]

And as I said, better to learn a subject by studying it, rather than taking
waterfall specs.

[Odd Bodkin]

This is where you take suggestions for background reading, rather than
asking people to explain lexicon to you here.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:04:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas
>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific)
>>>> definition. The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the
>>>> *change* of *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change*
>>>> of *position* per unit time.
>>>
>>> Similar words, same meaning.
>>
>> The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_ have
>> the same meaning.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>

Have you read this?

>>
>> A *distance* is, as you indicated correctly, zero or positive if the
>> space in which it is measured has a symmetric bilinear form (an inner
>> product) that is positive-definite. (That does not hold for all
>> spaces.)
>>
>> But a *change* of a value, a *difference*, can be *both* positive and
>> negative. In an ordered field 𝔽, the following holds for all x₁, x₂ ∈
>> 𝔽:
>>
>> (x₁ > x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ < 0)
>> (x₁ = x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ = 0)
>> (x₁ < x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ > 0)
>>
>> Do you agree to that?
>
> What a fancy way to say direction.

Not so. I was merely talking about algebra here. I did so because if you
cannot even agree to the basic concepts, then there is no point talking to you.

> But if that is what you require, I'll try and remember.

I take that answer as a “yes” to my question.

>>>> That is still not the whole picture, but I will let you chew on it
>>>> first.
>>> See above.
>> That was already too much for you you chew on?
>
> Nope, Just saying the same things over and over is so time consuming.

So, have you thought about it at all?

>>>>> The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied
>>>>> to them.
>>>> Not even wrong.
>>> You, as a programmer,
>> I consider myself, among other things, a _software developer_, but I’ll
>> bite.
>
> You want to play, let's play
>
> I see your '_software developer_' and raise a '_System Designer with MSc

> (Dist) […]

You can google my name to learn more about me, so I am not going to waste
my precious free time with such posturing. I am not *that* much seeking
attention. Let us just say that I have studied computer science and have
a few certificates in that field, too.

You are mistaken if you think that I wanted to compare lengths here, but
if you insist: That CV does not say that you *know* physics, in particular
it does not qualify you to redefine terms of mathematics and physics.

It should enable you to *learn* physics (I know), but you have not yet
demonstrated that ability.

>>> should know that any implementation of that concept applies as just
>>> that.
>> That sentence does not even have a meaning. You are making (up) word
>> salad and pretend that it has a meaning. That way lies madness.
>
> Looks like I need to more specific. Concepts are ideas. They can be
> manifested in many ways. Choose your own. I have mine.

In which way is that “more specific”? You are still fleeing into
generalities, and the claim that one can use any kind of terminology
in order to construct a consistent framework of thought is a fallacy.
Moreover, if you want to communicate ideas, you better work with and
within a framework that is agreed to by all participants. So far,
*you* are the odd man out.

>>> signed and unsigned are practical implementations of just that
>>> concept.
>> Which concept?
>

> The concept of remembering to get an update to my 'Babble Fish' […]

That device is called _Babelfish_, from the ancient city of Babylon (Babel;
where, according to some religious texts, the deity of the corresponding
religion[s] caused mankind to speak in different languages as, IIRC, penalty
for their hubris to build a tower that reaches the sky¹).

But ”Babble Fish” fits better in your case :-> You write much and say
little, if that.

>> There was no /ad hominem/ argument from me to you. If someone tells
>> you that you are mistaken, that you have written something that does
>> not make sense, has no discernible meaning, that is _not_ an offense.
>> It is a comment and a warning sign that you should take seriously
>> because it points out a potential flaw in your argument.
>
> A man who doesn't call insults an ad hom. attack.

Once again, if someone says to you that you are wrong, that is not an
insult, but merely a factual statement. Now, that statement may be wrong,
and that is were proper debate can begin.

The problem is that you are claiming that you have been offended by that
statement, and you are using it as an excuse to *avoid* proper debate.

> But I'm sure you can defend that logically or otherwise.

“There is no offense where none is taken.”

—Surak

>>>>> Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand'
>>>>> view with things moving to the right. What happens if, on the
>>>>> same piece of paper, you also draw one moving to the right and
>>>>> one moving to the left?
>>>> Then you have drawn two light clocks. (That was easy.)
>>> Now try and calculate the magnitude of hypotenuse of the two
>>> triangles. Given that one has a -v and the other a +v.
>>
>> Ex falso quodlibet.
>
> Ah how easy it is to ignore the support for the point well made.

There is no support. You have not even made a point that could be supported
to begin with. If you had made a point one could argue
about it, but ISTM that you are carefully avoiding that.

>> If you are referring to the paths of the light in the rest frame and
>> the moving frame – it is really difficult for a knowledgeable person to
>> discern what you *might* mean when you are talking about things, due to
>> your word-salad terminology –, there are (at least) *two* hypothenuses
>> then, _not_ one:
>>

>> […]

>
> Thank you for the ascii art. Would you like to compare it to the one I
> previously provided that used plain -v and +v and c for the axis?

No, thanks, I am getting the idea that I am wasting too much time with this
already.

> You forgot to say which dt you were using so that real figures could be
> plugged in.

I wrote ∆t (Delta t) for simplicity (I really do not think that you are
ready for differential calculus yet), and it suffices to know that the
different notation implies that it may differ from ∆t' (Delta t').

Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the *Pythagorean
theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively, according to that
theorem? How long is it according to how
the light clock *basically* works?

You do not seem to understand – which is curious as you are talking about
vectors in blissful ignorance at the same time – that in in the *natural*
sciences (as opposed to philosophy) the description of nature can be
generalized using mathematics (in particular, algebra) so that real figures
are *not needed* to describe nature and ultimately find laws of nature.

>>>>> Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both
>>>>> shortened to velocity.
>>>> Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude, “speed”,
>>>> interchangably. You have just done it.
>>> No, I have described a vector in applied maths.
>
> See any computer language API for a description of vectors in Logic. 2
> fields of 'Magnitude' (unsigned) and 'Direction' (signed').

You are lost in your purported field of expertise, which evidentially you do
not know well either.

In particular – I cannot believe that I have to tell *you* this – *there are
no vectors in logic*.

>> You claim to employ logical argument, so the following should not come
>> as a surprise to you:
>>
>> 1. Vectors do not have a sign. 2. Velocity is a vector. 3. Therefore,
>> velocity does not have a sign. 4. Therefore, there are no “negative
>> velocities”.
>
> See above. My discipline that I am speaking from, my rules.

You cannot just make up your own terminology and rules, and pretend that
(without proper definition) they make sense to everyone else and that they
apply. In particular, you cannot do that in the *natural* sciences. Your
statements have to have *some* relation to observable reality, to what
nature *really does*.

<http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics>

>>>>> Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude'
>>>>> and then apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so
>>>>> be it.
>>>> Ex falso quodlibet.
>>> See above.
>> Argumentum ad nauseam.
>
> Ad hom. (passive)

<https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy>

______
¹ One more example how religion is the antithesis of science: A story
about a deity that (again) *punishes* others for their desire to
seek *knowledge*.

[RLH]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 8:02:46 PM UTC+1, RLH wrote:

> Put me down for 2, 4 and 6

I have noticed that no-one has offered their numbers yet. Any takers

[RLH]

Hmm. If you're only going to accept those who already know the subject, how are you supposed to explain it to other people? Is this "join the church to see the light" time already?

[RLH]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:20:26 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> RLH wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:04:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> RLH wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas
> >>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific)
> >>>> definition. The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the
> >>>> *change* of *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change*
> >>>> of *position* per unit time.
> >>>
> >>> Similar words, same meaning.
> >>
> >> The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_ have
> >> the same meaning.
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>
>
> Have you read this?

"Distance is a numerical description of how far apart objects are. In physics or everyday usage, distance may refer to a physical length, or an estimation based on other criteria (e.g. "two counties over"). In most cases, "distance from A to B" is interchangeable with "distance from B to A". In mathematics, a distance function or metric is a generalization of the concept of physical distance. A metric is a function that behaves according to a specific set of rules, and is a way of describing what it means for elements of some space to be "close to" or "far away from" each other."

Yes.

[RLH]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:20:26 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> RLH wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:04:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> RLH wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas
> >>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific)
> >>>> definition. The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the
> >>>> *change* of *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change*
> >>>> of *position* per unit time.
> >>>
> >>> Similar words, same meaning.
> >>
> >> The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_ have
> >> the same meaning.
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>
>
> Have you read this?

Damn. Posted too early.

> >>
> >> A *distance* is, as you indicated correctly, zero or positive if the
> >> space in which it is measured has a symmetric bilinear form (an inner
> >> product) that is positive-definite. (That does not hold for all
> >> spaces.)
> >>
> >> But a *change* of a value, a *difference*, can be *both* positive and
> >> negative. In an ordered field 𝔽, the following holds for all x₁, x₂ ∈
> >> 𝔽:
> >>
> >> (x₁ > x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ < 0)
> >> (x₁ = x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ = 0)
> >> (x₁ < x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ > 0)
> >>
> >> Do you agree to that?
> >
> > What a fancy way to say direction.
>
> Not so. I was merely talking about algebra here. I did so because if you
> cannot even agree to the basic concepts, then there is no point talking to you.

I agree the algebra is correct. I thought I said that by agreeing that it was a longwinded way to say what we both agreed.

> > But if that is what you require, I'll try and remember.
>
> I take that answer as a “yes” to my question.

See above.

> >>>> That is still not the whole picture, but I will let you chew on it
> >>>> first.
> >>> See above.
> >> That was already too much for you you chew on?
> >
> > Nope, Just saying the same things over and over is so time consuming.
>
> So, have you thought about it at all?

I said I had above.

> >>>>> The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied
> >>>>> to them.
> >>>> Not even wrong.
> >>> You, as a programmer,
> >> I consider myself, among other things, a _software developer_, but I’ll
> >> bite.
> >
> > You want to play, let's play
> >
> > I see your '_software developer_' and raise a '_System Designer with MSc
> > (Dist) […]
>
> You can google my name to learn more about me, so I am not going to waste
> my precious free time with such posturing. I am not *that* much seeking
> attention. Let us just say that I have studied computer science and have
> a few certificates in that field, too.

Done that already. Do your want a peer review of your code? Which languages are to be considered? I used to do a lot of peer review back in the day.

> You are mistaken if you think that I wanted to compare lengths here, but
> if you insist: That CV does not say that you *know* physics, in particular
> it does not qualify you to redefine terms of mathematics and physics.

I have never sought to do so. I did use my discipline to describe what I was saying. Surprising that I need to do the translation for you, given that you are in that discipline also. Is it true you only a student in science?

> It should enable you to *learn* physics (I know), but you have not yet
> demonstrated that ability.

You seem to be pretty poor in computing, based on the evidence.

> >>> should know that any implementation of that concept applies as just
> >>> that.
> >> That sentence does not even have a meaning. You are making (up) word
> >> salad and pretend that it has a meaning. That way lies madness.
> >
> > Looks like I need to more specific. Concepts are ideas. They can be
> > manifested in many ways. Choose your own. I have mine.
>
> In which way is that “more specific”? You are still fleeing into
> generalities, and the claim that one can use any kind of terminology
> in order to construct a consistent framework of thought is a fallacy.
> Moreover, if you want to communicate ideas, you better work with and
> within a framework that is agreed to by all participants. So far,
> *you* are the odd man out.

I follow down the rabbit hole and look where it gets me.

> >>> signed and unsigned are practical implementations of just that
> >>> concept.
> >> Which concept?
> >
> > The concept of remembering to get an update to my 'Babble Fish' […]
>
> That device is called _Babelfish_, from the ancient city of Babylon (Babel;
> where, according to some religious texts, the deity of the corresponding
> religion[s] caused mankind to speak in different languages as, IIRC, penalty
> for their hubris to build a tower that reaches the sky¹).
>
> But ”Babble Fish” fits better in your case :-> You write much and say
> little, if that.

Again you pick the words and miss the meaning.

> >> There was no /ad hominem/ argument from me to you. If someone tells
> >> you that you are mistaken, that you have written something that does
> >> not make sense, has no discernible meaning, that is _not_ an offense.
> >> It is a comment and a warning sign that you should take seriously
> >> because it points out a potential flaw in your argument.
> >
> > A man who doesn't call insults an ad hom. attack.
>
> Once again, if someone says to you that you are wrong, that is not an
> insult, but merely a factual statement. Now, that statement may be wrong,
> and that is were proper debate can begin.

See your own words for the insults. Do I really have to go cut and paste them.

> The problem is that you are claiming that you have been offended by that
> statement, and you are using it as an excuse to *avoid* proper debate.
>
> > But I'm sure you can defend that logically or otherwise.
>
> “There is no offense where none is taken.”
>
> —Surak

Right. Looked in a mirror lately?

> >>>>> Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand'
> >>>>> view with things moving to the right. What happens if, on the
> >>>>> same piece of paper, you also draw one moving to the right and
> >>>>> one moving to the left?
> >>>> Then you have drawn two light clocks. (That was easy.)
> >>> Now try and calculate the magnitude of hypotenuse of the two
> >>> triangles. Given that one has a -v and the other a +v.
> >>
> >> Ex falso quodlibet.
> >
> > Ah how easy it is to ignore the support for the point well made.
>
> There is no support. You have not even made a point that could be supported
> to begin with. If you had made a point one could argue
> about it, but ISTM that you are carefully avoiding that.

I am using +v, -v and c. I have made that clear from the start. Why will you not accept that those are a valid way of describing things. dT rather than time period. dV rather than v. Those should be over a time period to make sense. What time period is that?

> >> If you are referring to the paths of the light in the rest frame and
> >> the moving frame – it is really difficult for a knowledgeable person to
> >> discern what you *might* mean when you are talking about things, due to
> >> your word-salad terminology –, there are (at least) *two* hypothenuses
> >> then, _not_ one:
> >>
> >> […]
> >
> > Thank you for the ascii art. Would you like to compare it to the one I
> > previously provided that used plain -v and +v and c for the axis?
>
> No, thanks, I am getting the idea that I am wasting too much time with this
> already.

Running out of places to hide?

> > You forgot to say which dt you were using so that real figures could be
> > plugged in.
>
> I wrote ∆t (Delta t) for simplicity (I really do not think that you are
> ready for differential calculus yet), and it suffices to know that the
> different notation implies that it may differ from ∆t' (Delta t').

Actually, now you come to mention it. I have a few thoughts about dT (and others) approaching 0. To do with why the estimates are always lower than the final figure. Surely an average between start and stop would mean there was no inaccuracy at all (for a straight line) and only small ones as we approach the tangent for higher functions.

> Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the *Pythagorean
> theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively, according to that
> theorem? How long is it according to how
> the light clock *basically* works?

You want that in -v, +v and c?

H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2)
H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)

Do you want the slope angles as well?

You sort the + - out.

> You do not seem to understand – which is curious as you are talking about
> vectors in blissful ignorance at the same time – that in in the *natural*
> sciences (as opposed to philosophy) the description of nature can be
> generalized using mathematics (in particular, algebra) so that real figures
> are *not needed* to describe nature and ultimately find laws of nature.
>
> >>>>> Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both
> >>>>> shortened to velocity.
> >>>> Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude, “speed”,
> >>>> interchangably. You have just done it.
> >>> No, I have described a vector in applied maths.
> >
> > See any computer language API for a description of vectors in Logic. 2
> > fields of 'Magnitude' (unsigned) and 'Direction' (signed').
>
> You are lost in your purported field of expertise, which evidentially you do
> not know well either.

I have letters and a long career that says otherwise.

> In particular – I cannot believe that I have to tell *you* this – *there are
> no vectors in logic*.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.vector(v=vs.110).aspx

Properties

Length Gets the length of this vector.
LengthSquared Gets the square of the length of this vector.
X Gets or sets the X component of this vector.
Y Gets or sets the Y component of this vector.
etc.

> >> You claim to employ logical argument, so the following should not come
> >> as a surprise to you:
> >>
> >> 1. Vectors do not have a sign. 2. Velocity is a vector. 3. Therefore,
> >> velocity does not have a sign. 4. Therefore, there are no “negative
> >> velocities”.
> >
> > See above. My discipline that I am speaking from, my rules.
>
> You cannot just make up your own terminology and rules, and pretend that
> (without proper definition) they make sense to everyone else and that they
> apply. In particular, you cannot do that in the *natural* sciences. Your
> statements have to have *some* relation to observable reality, to what
> nature *really does*.

See ref provided above.

> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics>
>
> >>>>> Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude'
> >>>>> and then apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so
> >>>>> be it.
> >>>> Ex falso quodlibet.
> >>> See above.
> >> Argumentum ad nauseam.
> >
> > Ad hom. (passive)
>
> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy>

Ad hom. (passive)

[Odd Bodkin]

I think it’s a common expectation that one should not talk much about a
subject you know nothing about. This is not a forum to learn basic physics.
It’s a place for people who KNOW some physics to discuss it.

You’ve exhibited a remarkable reluctance to even cracking a basic book on
physics, which is an unfortunate choice by someone with an advanced degree.
It seems to indicate you’ve gotten lazy in your old age.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Yeah .........
I get around this stumbling block by not utilizing ANY WORDS

Only numbers

[RLH]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:15:34 AM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I think it’s a common expectation that one should not talk much about a
> subject you know nothing about. This is not a forum to learn basic physics.
> It’s a place for people who KNOW some physics to discuss it.
>
> You’ve exhibited a remarkable reluctance to even cracking a basic book on
> physics, which is an unfortunate choice by someone with an advanced degree.
> It seems to indicate you’ve gotten lazy in your old age.

See my responses in the "There are none so blind" for some of what I know about.

[RLH]

101101001110....

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

(((((6.0200224e+26 / 8333.3333333) * 1.012500e-34) / (6.67407407407474074074e-11^3)) / (3e+8^2)) / 135) / 2 = 1.01250002852


((((Avogadro's / Gas Constant) * hbar) / (G^3)) / (c^2)/Fine Structure Constant ))/2 = 1.04306825

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

You're kinda Dumb aren't you ?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Only the Flat Spots

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:43:58 PM UTC-5, RLH wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnh2AplyKi4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY

Lord Kronos

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

((6.0200224e+26^2) * 1.01250002852) / 2 = 1.834684e+53


((((4.2833211e+26^2) kg) * G) / (c^2)) = (14.401106816 billion light years)

[RLH]

Time to call a halt on this thread I think. I am no longer monitoring it.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

PUSSY

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:20:26 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:04:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>>> Lahn wrote:
>>>> RLH wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas
>>>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific)
>>>>>> definition. The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is the
>>>>>> *change* of *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the *change*
>>>>>> of *position* per unit time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similar words, same meaning.
>>>>
>>>> The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_ have
>>>> the same meaning.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>
>>
>> Have you read this?
>
> "Distance is a numerical description of how far apart objects are. In physics or everyday usage, distance may refer to a physical length, or an estimation based on other criteria (e.g. "two counties over"). In most cases, "distance from A to B" is interchangeable with "distance from B to A". In mathematics, a distance function or metric is a generalization of the concept of physical distance. A metric is a function that behaves according to a specific set of rules, and is a way of describing what it means for elements of some space to be "close to" or "far away from" each other."
>
> Yes.

And distance is something different from displacement. The latter is a
difference of coordinates.

> [100+ lines of full quote]

You cannot be serious.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

RLH wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:20:26 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 9:04:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas
>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> RLH wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:30:53 PM UTC+1, Thomas
>>>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> That is the naive, oversimplified (and not very scientific)
>>>>>> definition. The *actual* definition of velocity is that it is
>>>>>> the *change* of *position* per *change* of *time*, or IOW, the
>>>>>> *change* of *position* per unit time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similar words, same meaning.
>>>>
>>>> The words are _not_ similar at all and (as a result) they do _not_
>>>> have the same meaning.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>
>>
>>
>>>>
Have you read this?
>
> Damn. Posted too early.

ACK.

> […] Do your want a peer review of your code? Which languages are to

> be considered? I used to do a lot of peer review back in the day.

Thanks; but no, thanks. Your arguments here do not bode well for your
qualification in that regard. Sloppy writer, sloppy thinker, sloppy coder.

>> You are mistaken if you think that I wanted to compare lengths here,
>> but if you insist: That CV does not say that you *know* physics, in
>> particular it does not qualify you to redefine terms of mathematics and
>> physics.
>
> I have never sought to do so. I did use my discipline to describe what I
> was saying. Surprising that I need to do the translation for you, given
> that you are in that discipline also.

You do not need to do any "translation". You need to use the *proper* terms
in the *proper* way, and you need to do it for you, not for me. After all,
*you* want to be understood and, I hope, you want to understand.

> Is it true you only a student in science?

What do you mean by “only”? Even a physics student is already vastly more
qualified to talk about physics than you who has no clue of physics at all.

>> It should enable you to *learn* physics (I know), but you have not yet
>> demonstrated that ability.
>
> You seem to be pretty poor in computing, based on the evidence.

You have no clue what you are talking about there either.

>>> Ah how easy it is to ignore the support for the point well made.
>>
>> There is no support. You have not even made a point that could be
>> supported to begin with. If you had made a point one could argue about
>> it, but ISTM that you are carefully avoiding that.
>
> I am using +v, -v and c.

For what?

>>> You forgot to say which dt you were using so that real figures could
>>> be plugged in.
>> I wrote ∆t (Delta t) for simplicity (I really do not think that you
>> are ready for differential calculus yet), and it suffices to know that
>> the different notation implies that it may differ from ∆t' (Delta t').
>
> Actually, now you come to mention it. I have a few thoughts about dT (and
> others) approaching 0.

Then you know even less than I thought.

>> Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the
>> *Pythagorean theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively,
>> according to that theorem? How long is it according to how the light
>> clock *basically* works?
>
> You want that in -v, +v and c?

Your *naive* substitution of v with -v and +v is *wrong*.

> H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2) H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)

Not even wrong. To begin with, how did you get the idea that the length
of one hypothenuse would be a *multiple* of the other? Do the two
hypothenuses look to you as having different lengths?

> Do you want the slope angles as well?

No, they are irrelevant. Do the *correct* calculation instead:

|Hypothenuse 1| = ?

|Hypothenuse 2| = ?

> You sort the + - out.

After you.

>>>>>>> Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both
>>>>>>> shortened to velocity.
>>>>>> Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude,
>>>>>> “speed”, interchangably. You have just done it.
>>>>> No, I have described a vector in applied maths.
>>> See any computer language API for a description of vectors in Logic.
>>> 2 fields of 'Magnitude' (unsigned) and 'Direction' (signed').
>> You are lost in your purported field of expertise, which evidentially
>> you do not know well either.
>
> I have letters and a long career that says otherwise.

If there are any, they are contradicted by your statements here, such as
above and the following:

>> In particular – I cannot believe that I have to tell *you* this –
>> *there are no vectors in logic*.
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.vector(v=vs.110).aspx

Good grief. Do you even know what *logic* *is*?

>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude'
>>>>>>> and then apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -,
>>>>>>> so be it.
>>>>>> Ex falso quodlibet.
>>>>> See above.
>>>> Argumentum ad nauseam.
>>> Ad hom. (passive)
>> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy>
>
> Ad hom. (passive)

^^^^^^^^^
There is no such thing. An /ad hominem/ argument is attacking the *person*
making an argument. Pointing out that your argument is a fallacy is
attacking the *argument* instead.

<https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy>

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> RLH wrote:

>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the
>>> *Pythagorean theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively,
>>> according to that theorem? How long is it according to how the light
>>> clock *basically* works?
>>
>> You want that in -v, +v and c?
>
> Your *naive* substitution of v with -v and +v is *wrong*.
>
>> H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2) H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)
>
> Not even wrong. To begin with, how did you get the idea that the length
> of one hypothenuse would be a *multiple* of the other? Do the two
> hypothenuses look to you as having different lengths?

My bad, the automatic quote wrapping caused the problem. The original text was:

> H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2)
> H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)

Unfortunately, that is even *worse*. The lengths of the cathetes are just
_not_ c and ±v (those are *speeds*), and even if they were lengths (which
they cannot be as *those* lengths cannot be negative), (−v)² would have to
be calculated, not −v².

Therefore:

>> Do you want the slope angles as well?
>
> No, they are irrelevant. Do the *correct* calculation instead:
>
> |Hypothenuse 1| = ?
>
> |Hypothenuse 2| = ?
>
>> You sort the + - out.
>
> After you.

.
.
.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 15-okt-2017 om 01:23 schreef RLH:

1. Troll
2. Little prat, age 7
3. Autist of the less gifted kind

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 15-okt-2017 om 05:08 schreef RLH:

Oh, but you are.
See?

Dirk Vdm

[RLH]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:20:26 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance#Distance_versus_directed_distance_and_displacement>
>
> Have you read this?

Why should I read a link when you obviously know the answer already/

> >>
> >> A *distance* is, as you indicated correctly, zero or positive if the
> >> space in which it is measured has a symmetric bilinear form (an inner
> >> product) that is positive-definite. (That does not hold for all
> >> spaces.)
> >>
> >> But a *change* of a value, a *difference*, can be *both* positive and
> >> negative. In an ordered field 𝔽, the following holds for all x₁, x₂ ∈
> >> 𝔽:
> >>
> >> (x₁ > x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ < 0)
> >> (x₁ = x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ = 0)
> >> (x₁ < x₂) ↔ (x₂ − x₁ > 0)
> >>
> >> Do you agree to that?
> >
> > What a fancy way to say direction.
>
> Not so. I was merely talking about algebra here. I did so because if you
> cannot even agree to the basic concepts, then there is no point talking to you.

Basic concepts? Sure.

> > But if that is what you require, I'll try and remember.
>
> I take that answer as a “yes” to my question.

It has been yes for a long while now

> >>>> That is still not the whole picture, but I will let you chew on it
> >>>> first.
> >>> See above.
> >> That was already too much for you you chew on?
> >
> > Nope, Just saying the same things over and over is so time consuming.
>
> So, have you thought about it at all?

Have you thought about anything I have asked?

> >>>>> The point was that all unsigned values cannot have a - applied
> >>>>> to them.
> >>>> Not even wrong.
> >>> You, as a programmer,
> >> I consider myself, among other things, a _software developer_, but I’ll
> >> bite.
> >
> > You want to play, let's play
> >
> > I see your '_software developer_' and raise a '_System Designer with MSc
> > (Dist) […]
>
> You can google my name to learn more about me, so I am not going to waste
> my precious free time with such posturing. I am not *that* much seeking
> attention. Let us just say that I have studied computer science and have
> a few certificates in that field, too.

Ok. It is just I've been doing that a little longer than you and, possibly, with more qualifications.

I have visited your web site. Is there anything you would like to highlight.

> You are mistaken if you think that I wanted to compare lengths here, but
> if you insist: That CV does not say that you *know* physics, in particular
> it does not qualify you to redefine terms of mathematics and physics.
>
> It should enable you to *learn* physics (I know), but you have not yet
> demonstrated that ability.

Sure. Skip answering the question because you can't come up an answer.

> >>> should know that any implementation of that concept applies as just
> >>> that.
> >> That sentence does not even have a meaning. You are making (up) word
> >> salad and pretend that it has a meaning. That way lies madness.
> >
> > Looks like I need to more specific. Concepts are ideas. They can be
> > manifested in many ways. Choose your own. I have mine.
>
> In which way is that “more specific”? You are still fleeing into
> generalities, and the claim that one can use any kind of terminology
> in order to construct a consistent framework of thought is a fallacy.
> Moreover, if you want to communicate ideas, you better work with and
> within a framework that is agreed to by all participants. So far,
> *you* are the odd man out.

Sure. Deflect.

> >>> signed and unsigned are practical implementations of just that
> >>> concept.
> >> Which concept?
> >
> > The concept of remembering to get an update to my 'Babble Fish' […]
>
> That device is called _Babelfish_, from the ancient city of Babylon (Babel;
> where, according to some religious texts, the deity of the corresponding
> religion[s] caused mankind to speak in different languages as, IIRC, penalty
> for their hubris to build a tower that reaches the sky¹).
>
> But ”Babble Fish” fits better in your case :-> You write much and say
> little, if that.

Ah, can't even take some humour

> >> There was no /ad hominem/ argument from me to you. If someone tells
> >> you that you are mistaken, that you have written something that does
> >> not make sense, has no discernible meaning, that is _not_ an offense.
> >> It is a comment and a warning sign that you should take seriously
> >> because it points out a potential flaw in your argument.
> >
> > A man who doesn't call insults an ad hom. attack.
>
> Once again, if someone says to you that you are wrong, that is not an
> insult, but merely a factual statement. Now, that statement may be wrong,
> and that is were proper debate can begin.

Only when I have joined the church and seen the light.

> The problem is that you are claiming that you have been offended by that
> statement, and you are using it as an excuse to *avoid* proper debate.
>
> > But I'm sure you can defend that logically or otherwise.
>
> “There is no offense where none is taken.”
>
> —Surak

As I said, look in the mirror

> >>>>> Light clocks, et al. are always show with only the 'right hand'
> >>>>> view with things moving to the right. What happens if, on the
> >>>>> same piece of paper, you also draw one moving to the right and
> >>>>> one moving to the left?
> >>>> Then you have drawn two light clocks. (That was easy.)
> >>> Now try and calculate the magnitude of hypotenuse of the two
> >>> triangles. Given that one has a -v and the other a +v.
> >>
> >> Ex falso quodlibet.
> >
> > Ah how easy it is to ignore the support for the point well made.
>
> There is no support. You have not even made a point that could be supported
> to begin with. If you had made a point one could argue
> about it, but ISTM that you are carefully avoiding that.

Sure. Skip away

> >> If you are referring to the paths of the light in the rest frame and
> >> the moving frame – it is really difficult for a knowledgeable person to
> >> discern what you *might* mean when you are talking about things, due to
> >> your word-salad terminology –, there are (at least) *two* hypothenuses
> >> then, _not_ one:
> >>
> >> […]
> >
> > Thank you for the ascii art. Would you like to compare it to the one I
> > previously provided that used plain -v and +v and c for the axis?
>
> No, thanks, I am getting the idea that I am wasting too much time with this
> already.

Time to go?

> > You forgot to say which dt you were using so that real figures could be
> > plugged in.
>
> I wrote ∆t (Delta t) for simplicity (I really do not think that you are
> ready for differential calculus yet), and it suffices to know that the
> different notation implies that it may differ from ∆t' (Delta t').

Yes, I can do symbol interchange

> Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the *Pythagorean
> theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively, according to that
> theorem? How long is it according to how
> the light clock *basically* works?

In one direction only if 2 plotted together.

> You do not seem to understand – which is curious as you are talking about
> vectors in blissful ignorance at the same time – that in in the *natural*
> sciences (as opposed to philosophy) the description of nature can be
> generalized using mathematics (in particular, algebra) so that real figures
> are *not needed* to describe nature and ultimately find laws of nature.

2d (and 3d) vectors are the lifeblood of the gaming industry.

> >>>>> Velocity magnitude and velocity direction are often both
> >>>>> shortened to velocity.
> >>>> Some people use the terms “velocity” and its magnitude, “speed”,
> >>>> interchangably. You have just done it.
> >>> No, I have described a vector in applied maths.
> >
> > See any computer language API for a description of vectors in Logic. 2
> > fields of 'Magnitude' (unsigned) and 'Direction' (signed').
>
> You are lost in your purported field of expertise, which evidentially you do
> not know well either.

Sure. Again, skip an answer.

> In particular – I cannot believe that I have to tell *you* this – *there are
> no vectors in logic*.

See the Microsoft reference. And the Unity one as well.

> >> You claim to employ logical argument, so the following should not come
> >> as a surprise to you:
> >>
> >> 1. Vectors do not have a sign. 2. Velocity is a vector. 3. Therefore,
> >> velocity does not have a sign. 4. Therefore, there are no “negative
> >> velocities”.
> >
> > See above. My discipline that I am speaking from, my rules.
>
> You cannot just make up your own terminology and rules, and pretend that
> (without proper definition) they make sense to everyone else and that they
> apply. In particular, you cannot do that in the *natural* sciences. Your
> statements have to have *some* relation to observable reality, to what
> nature *really does*.

But up by support from industry leading software houses?

> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics>

I have seen some of the stuff he wrote. Was there something specific you wanted to comment on?

> >>>>> Therefore you can only take the sqrt() of 'velocity magnitude'
> >>>>> and then apply 'velocity direction'. If that happens to be -, so
> >>>>> be it.
> >>>> Ex falso quodlibet.
> >>> See above.
> >> Argumentum ad nauseam.
> >
> > Ad hom. (passive)
>
> <https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy>

Ad hom. (passive)

[RLH]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 8:22:18 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > RLH wrote:
> >> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the
> >>> *Pythagorean theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively,
> >>> according to that theorem? How long is it according to how the light
> >>> clock *basically* works?
> >>
> >> You want that in -v, +v and c?
> >
> > Your *naive* substitution of v with -v and +v is *wrong*.
> >
> >> H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2) H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)
> >
> > Not even wrong. To begin with, how did you get the idea that the length
> > of one hypothenuse would be a *multiple* of the other? Do the two
> > hypothenuses look to you as having different lengths?
>
> My bad, the automatic quote wrapping caused the problem. The original text was:
>
> > H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2)
> > H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)

N.P.

> Unfortunately, that is even *worse*. The lengths of the cathetes are just
> _not_ c and ±v (those are *speeds*), and even if they were lengths (which
> they cannot be as *those* lengths cannot be negative), (−v)² would have to
> be calculated, not −v².

Sure MS and Unity do it all wrong.

> Therefore:
>
> >> Do you want the slope angles as well?
> >
> > No, they are irrelevant. Do the *correct* calculation instead:
> >
> > |Hypothenuse 1| = ?
> >
> > |Hypothenuse 2| = ?
> >
> >> You sort the + - out.
> >
> > After you.

As I have constantly said, this is about +v, -v and c as used in the light clock. Not some other area.

[RLH]

Bzzz. Not part of the original number set.

[RLH]

Well I reported it to Google groups as a serious ad. hom attack. They may not do anything but at leats I know I called them. Its title and the fact you all keep posting to it very revealing.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Linsley Hood wrote:
> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> RLH wrote:
>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the
>>>>> *Pythagorean theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively,
>>>>> according to that theorem? How long is it according to how the light
>>>>> clock *basically* works?
>>>>
>>>> You want that in -v, +v and c?
>>>
>>> Your *naive* substitution of v with -v and +v is *wrong*.
>>>
>>>> H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2)
>>>> H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)

> […]

>> Unfortunately, that is even *worse*. The lengths of the cathetes are just
>> _not_ c and ±v (those are *speeds*), and even if they were lengths (which
>> they cannot be as *those* lengths cannot be negative), (−v)² would have to
>> be calculated, not −v².
>
> Sure MS and Unity do it all wrong.

I do not care what they do, but *you* are *definitely* doing it wrong.
See below.

>> Therefore:
>>
>>>> Do you want the slope angles as well?
>>>
>>> No, they are irrelevant. Do the *correct* calculation instead:
>>>
>>> |Hypothenuse 1| = ?
>>>
>>> |Hypothenuse 2| = ?
>>>
>>>> You sort the + - out.
>>>
>>> After you.
>
> As I have constantly said, this is about +v, -v and c as used in the
> light clock. Not some other area.

Good grief. Can’t you do simple algebra?

|Hypotenuse 1|² = |cathetus 1|² + |cathetus 2|² ¹)

|Hypotenuse 1|² = (−v ∆t')² + (c ∆t)² = (−v)² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
= (−1 v)² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
= (−1)² v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
= 1 v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
= v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²

|Hypotenuse 1|² = |cathetus 3|² + |cathetus 4|²

|Hypotenuse 2|² = (+v ∆t')² + (c ∆t)² = v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²

So

|Hypotenuse 1|² = |Hypotenuse 2|² = v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
|Hypotenuse 1| = |Hypotenuse 2| = √(v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²),

as one can also see *geometrically*.

Calculating the length of the hypotenuses based on the working of the light
clock, thus finding equal time dilation in both cases, as shown by a Lorentz
factor that is *independent* of the direction of velocity parallel to the
axis of motion due to the *square* of the velocity, is left as an exercise
to the reader.

_______
¹) I learned today that English (in contrast to German) still has it
strictly according to Latin in that case: cathetus — catheti
(_not_: cathete — cathetes). Also, it is _hypotenuse_,
_not_ “hypothenuse”, which is obvious if you consider the etymology.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathetus> p.

[RLH]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:38:57 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Linsley Hood wrote:
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> RLH wrote:
> >>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>> Now, you who profess to know mathematics and physics, apply the
> >>>>> *Pythagorean theorem*: How long are the hypothenuses, respectively,
> >>>>> according to that theorem? How long is it according to how the light
> >>>>> clock *basically* works?
> >>>>
> >>>> You want that in -v, +v and c?
> >>>
> >>> Your *naive* substitution of v with -v and +v is *wrong*.
> >>>
> >>>> H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2)
> >>>> H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)
> > […]
> >> Unfortunately, that is even *worse*. The lengths of the cathetes are just
> >> _not_ c and ±v (those are *speeds*), and even if they were lengths (which
> >> they cannot be as *those* lengths cannot be negative), (−v)² would have to
> >> be calculated, not −v².
> >
> > Sure MS and Unity do it all wrong.
>
> I do not care what they do, but *you* are *definitely* doing it wrong.

Yeah, sure. Done some tutoring/presentations on how to do 2d graphics.

Creating a diagram that demonstrates this in action on a screen is for Unity et. al. As any real presenter will tell you.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Linsley Hood wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:38:57 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Richard Linsley Hood wrote:
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> RLH wrote:
>>>>>> H1 = sqrt(c^2 + +v^2)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>>>> H2 = sqrt(c^2 + -v^2)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>> […]
>>>> Unfortunately, that is even *worse*. The lengths of the cathetes are just
>>>> _not_ c and ±v (those are *speeds*), and even if they were lengths (which
>>>> they cannot be as *those* lengths cannot be negative), (−v)² would have to
>>>> be calculated, not −v².
>>>
>>> Sure MS and Unity do it all wrong.
>>
>> I do not care what they do, but *you* are *definitely* doing it wrong.
>
> Yeah, sure. Done some tutoring/presentations on how to do 2d graphics.

I was talking about your "mathematics"!

>> […]

>>> As I have constantly said, this is about +v, -v and c as used in the
>>> light clock. Not some other area.
>>
>> Good grief. Can’t you do simple algebra?
>>
>> |Hypotenuse 1|² = |cathetus 1|² + |cathetus 2|² ¹)
>>
>> |Hypotenuse 1|² = (−v ∆t')² + (c ∆t)² = (−v)² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
>> […]

>> = v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> |Hypotenuse 1|² = |cathetus 3|² + |cathetus 4|²
>>
>> |Hypotenuse 2|² = (+v ∆t')² + (c ∆t)² = v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>
>> So
>>
>> |Hypotenuse 1|² = |Hypotenuse 2|² = v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²
>> |Hypotenuse 1| = |Hypotenuse 2| = √(v² ∆t'² + c² ∆t²),

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> as one can also see *geometrically*.
>>
>> Calculating the length of the hypotenuses based on the working of the light
>> clock, thus finding equal time dilation in both cases, as shown by a Lorentz
>> factor that is *independent* of the direction of velocity parallel to the
>> axis of motion due to the *square* of the velocity, is left as an exercise
>> to the reader.
>
> Creating a diagram that demonstrates this in action on a screen is for
> Unity et. al. As any real presenter will tell you.

*PLONK*

F’up2 poster

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.