Claim of SR on time dilation as given by the light clock

[RLH]

Method of experiment:

2 spaceships approaching one another in interstellar space with a closing velocity of either v or 2v. They will meet/pass at a space station located at the 'centre' v is the relative velocity to the space station, 2v is the relative velocity ship to ship.

Using pulses of light between them to determine distances. (Laser range finder)
Using pulses of light locally to establish time. (light clock)

Results.

Well.....


We have 3 inertial reference frames, one each for all of the vessels. Each has its co-ordinate system set to 0 as is required by inertial frames.

I am unable to come with a diagram that respects SR.

[RLH]

Just to make it clear, I will accept that v can add either in SR on Newtonian terms. I have only used Newtonian. If I use SR it all falls apart.

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017, 12:32:22 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> Method of experiment:
>
> 2 spaceships approaching one another in interstellar space with a closing velocity of either v or 2v. They will meet/pass at a space station located at the 'centre' v is the relative velocity to the space station, 2v is the relative velocity ship to ship.
>
> Using pulses of light between them to determine distances. (Laser range finder)
> Using pulses of light locally to establish time. (light clock)
>

What is that you are trying to prove with all this? Because up until now, you
are proving, beyond any doubt, you understand nothing about physics.

You declare above, without saying that the two spaceships are moving in opposite
directions towards a space station located mid way between the spaceships. OK
let us say we agree with that.

Then you assert, without any instruction or proof, that somebody (where are
those somebodies located) using laser range finder can determine distances
(which distances we are not told). Why are distances to be determined?

Finally you assert that time, somehow, will be determined by a light clock. You
do not give any detail about this novel procedure of determine time. You do not
say with which purpose determine time with a light clock is required.

You may perhaps understand how ridicule your Nth so posted scenerario looks.

[RLH]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 5:58:55 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017, 12:32:22 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> > Method of experiment:
> >
> > 2 spaceships approaching one another in interstellar space with a closing velocity of either v or 2v. They will meet/pass at a space station located at the 'centre' v is the relative velocity to the space station, 2v is the relative velocity ship to ship.
> >
> > Using pulses of light between them to determine distances. (Laser range finder)
> > Using pulses of light locally to establish time. (light clock)
> >
>
> What is that you are trying to prove with all this? Because up until now, you
> are proving, beyond any doubt, you understand nothing about physics.

I am proving that I am incapable of creating the diagram I describe.

I am asking for clarification on how to do it correctly. Saying apply SR doesn't work as I have already said. It works with Newtonian physics, just not SR.

> You declare above, without saying that the two spaceships are moving in opposite
> directions towards a space station located mid way between the spaceships. OK
> let us say we agree with that.

Cool. That is exactly what I was describing, I thought.

> Then you assert, without any instruction or proof, that somebody (where are
> those somebodies located) using laser range finder can determine distances
> (which distances we are not told). Why are distances to be determined?

The distances between the spaceships and the space station as measured on the spaceships and the space station themselves by using laser range finders. Again something I thought I had made clear, but obviously not.

> Finally you assert that time, somehow, will be determined by a light clock. You
> do not give any detail about this novel procedure of determine time. You do not
> say with which purpose determine time with a light clock is required.

So as to give an unambiguous definition for time periods that must be true in all frames, c being a constant. The time taken for light to bounce between 2 mirrors in their own frame.

> You may perhaps understand how ridicule your Nth so posted scenario looks.

I apologise for my lack of clarity. Is it better now?

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017, 16:16:43 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 5:58:55 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > El miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017, 12:32:22 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> > > Method of experiment:
> > >
> > > 2 spaceships approaching one another in interstellar space with a closing velocity of either v or 2v. They will meet/pass at a space station located at the 'centre' v is the relative velocity to the space station, 2v is the relative velocity ship to ship.
> > >
> > > Using pulses of light between them to determine distances. (Laser range finder)
> > > Using pulses of light locally to establish time. (light clock)
> > >
> >
> > What is that you are trying to prove with all this? Because up until now, you
> > are proving, beyond any doubt, you understand nothing about physics.
>
> I am proving that I am incapable of creating the diagram I describe.
>
> I am asking for clarification on how to do it correctly. Saying apply SR doesn't work as I have already said. It works with Newtonian physics, just not SR.
>
> > You declare above, without saying that the two spaceships are moving in opposite
> > directions towards a space station located mid way between the spaceships. OK
> > let us say we agree with that.
>
> Cool. That is exactly what I was describing, I thought.

That is your problem...you do not think!

>
> > Then you assert, without any instruction or proof, that somebody (where are
> > those somebodies located) using laser range finder can determine distances
> > (which distances we are not told). Why are distances to be determined?
>
> The distances between the spaceships and the space station as measured on the spaceships and the space station themselves by using laser range finders. Again something I thought I had made clear, but obviously not.
>

Clearly if you do not write it, nobody will be able to know what you are
thinking...

But, again why do you need to measure those distances? In other words,
what is the purpose of this Nth versijon of some experiment you are trying,
unsuccessfully to explain?

> > Finally you assert that time, somehow, will be determined by a light clock. You
> > do not give any detail about this novel procedure of determine time. You do not
> > say with which purpose determine time with a light clock is required.
>
> So as to give an unambiguous definition for time periods that must be true in all frames, c being a constant. The time taken for light to bounce between 2 mirrors in their own frame.
>

And why would you think that a ligth clock is "an unambiguous definition for
time periods in all frames", which by the way is totally wrong.

> > You may perhaps understand how ridicule your Nth so posted scenario looks.
>
> I apologise for my lack of clarity. Is it better now?

Not really, since you do not know how to explain yourself. Nothing of what
you write makes any sense at all.

You have been told there are some format a presentation of an experiment in
physics has to follow. You are not using anything of that at all.

[RLH]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:34:45 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> That is your problem...you do not think!

I fail to realise that my description is not sufficient to correctly convey what I am trying to say.

> Clearly if you do not write it, nobody will be able to know what you are
> thinking...

Well I had hoped that they would do some thinking too.

> But, again why do you need to measure those distances? In other words,
> what is the purpose of this Nth versijon of some experiment you are trying,
> unsuccessfully to explain?

That, unless someone can create an SR based diagram, then things get interesting.

> > > Finally you assert that time, somehow, will be determined by a light clock. You
> > > do not give any detail about this novel procedure of determine time. You do not
> > > say with which purpose determine time with a light clock is required.
> >
> > So as to give an unambiguous definition for time periods that must be true in all frames, c being a constant. The time taken for light to bounce between 2 mirrors in their own frame.
> >
>
> And why would you think that a ligth clock is "an unambiguous definition for
> time periods in all frames", which by the way is totally wrong.

The time taken for light to bounce between 2 mirrors d meters apart must be the same in all frames, c is constant.

You can always measure separation by length or by the time it takes for light to travel that length.

L = c * dT

> > > You may perhaps understand how ridicule your Nth so posted scenario looks.
> >
> > I apologise for my lack of clarity. Is it better now?
>
> Not really, since you do not know how to explain yourself. Nothing of what
> you write makes any sense at all.
>
> You have been told there are some format a presentation of an experiment in
> physics has to follow. You are not using anything of that at all.

I am trying very hard. Please correct where you require. Precisely where required, not some assertion that I am stupid because I can't do it.

[RLH]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:14:43 PM UTC+1, RLH wrote:
> You can always measure separation by length or by the time it takes for light to travel that length.

When viewing it in that frame.

Sorry, lack of precision again.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Can we see light traveling; propagating?

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017, 17:14:43 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:34:45 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > That is your problem...you do not think!
>
> I fail to realise that my description is not sufficient to correctly convey what I am trying to say.
>

Well, try harder.

> > Clearly if you do not write it, nobody will be able to know what you are
> > thinking...
>
> Well I had hoped that they would do some thinking too.
>

Nobody can think by you. Look, you can ask specific questions and you will get
some answers. Until now you have not asked nothing specific, even if we have provided you with relevant information.

> > But, again why do you need to measure those distances? In other words,
> > what is the purpose of this Nth versijon of some experiment you are trying,
> > unsuccessfully to explain?
>
> That, unless someone can create an SR based diagram, then things get interesting.
>

You see? what is the meaning of "That..."???

> > > > Finally you assert that time, somehow, will be determined by a light clock. You
> > > > do not give any detail about this novel procedure of determine time. You do not
> > > > say with which purpose determine time with a light clock is required.
> > >
> > > So as to give an unambiguous definition for time periods that must be true in all frames, c being a constant. The time taken for light to bounce between 2 mirrors in their own frame.
> > >
> >
> > And why would you think that a ligth clock is "an unambiguous definition for
> > time periods in all frames", which by the way is totally wrong.
>
> The time taken for light to bounce between 2 mirrors d meters apart must be the same in all frames, c is constant.
>

This is obviously wrong but clearly you do not know why.

> You can always measure separation by length or by the time it takes for light to travel that length.
>
> L = c * dT
>

Wrong again. How would you determine dT?

> > > > You may perhaps understand how ridicule your Nth so posted scenario looks.
> > >
> > > I apologise for my lack of clarity. Is it better now?
> >
> > Not really, since you do not know how to explain yourself. Nothing of what
> > you write makes any sense at all.
> >
> > You have been told there are some format a presentation of an experiment in
> > physics has to follow. You are not using anything of that at all.
>
> I am trying very hard. Please correct where you require. Precisely where required, not some assertion that I am stupid because I can't do it.

I would correct if you had a small text without lot of errors regarding what
you are trying to say.

[Nos Etrakis]

Impossible, that's why light clocks are impossible theoretical device.
Excellent question.

[RLH]

Try inserting a wall at a very shallow angle and watch it grow outwards away from you (use a flat beam of light.)

[RLH]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:41:36 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017, 17:14:43 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:34:45 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > > That is your problem...you do not think!
> >
> > I fail to realise that my description is not sufficient to correctly convey what I am trying to say.
> >
> Well, try harder.

I am.

> > > Clearly if you do not write it, nobody will be able to know what you are
> > > thinking...
> >
> > Well I had hoped that they would do some thinking too.
> >
>
> Nobody can think by you.

I assume you meant for you.
I can't think for you either.

[Nos Etrakis]

RLH wrote:

>> Can we see light traveling; propagating?
>
> Try inserting a wall at a very shallow angle and watch it grow outwards
> away from you (use a flat beam of light.)

A detector can only sense light directed into it. Anything else you just
waste your time.

[RLH]

Reflections off the wall (back in the direction of the light beam) are the detector. It'll have to be a very, very shallow angle and probably a very wide beam of light and some crazy fine angle reflections but the concept holds true.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

It is not physical possible to measure the velocity of light.

[Nos Etrakis]

RLH wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:56:19 PM UTC+1, Nos Etrakis wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>
>> >> Can we see light traveling; propagating?
>> >
>> > Try inserting a wall at a very shallow angle and watch it grow
>> > outwards away from you (use a flat beam of light.)
>>
>> A detector can only sense light directed into it. Anything else you
>> just waste your time.
>
> Reflections off the wall (back in the direction of the light beam) are
> the detector.

What part you didn't understand? I am here to help. I can write it one
more time, if you really want me to.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Huygens attempted to measure the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter but at the position L the dark side of the earth (nite) is not facing Jupiter. So, using KL that represents the earth orbital diameter that is used to calculate the velocity of light is not physically possible. All this ostensible abstract physics has cause this extremely embarrassing and humiliate situation. When I asked IBM Watson he replied "Flies eat banana bread." or something like that.

[RLH]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:09:18 PM UTC+1, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is not physical possible to measure the velocity of light.

I disagree.

[RLH]

Sorry. I was just expanding on the observation.

[RLH]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:31:35 PM UTC+1, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Huygens attempted to measure the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter but at the position L the dark side of the earth (nite) is not facing Jupiter. So, using KL that represents the earth orbital diameter that is used to calculate the velocity of light is not physically possible. All this ostensible abstract physics has cause this extremely embarrassing and humiliate situation. When I asked IBM Watson he replied "Flies eat banana bread." or something like that.

A laser range finder measures light speed over distance quite happily, thanks.

[Sylvia Else]

Of course not. Your initial conditions already contradict SR, in that
you assume that if the ships each have a velocity v relative to the
space station, they'll have a velocity of 2v relative to each other. In
SR, they won't.

Your scenario is over-constrained. You should leave out the bit about
the 2v.

Sylvia.

[RLH]

Sure. Add v + v how you like. Still only works for Newton.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, gamma is not as simple as it seems.

v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.

[Poutnik]

Dne 12/10/2017 v 08:55 RLH napsal(a):

>
> Sure. Add v + v how you like. Still only works for Newton.

But "Newton" does not work for observed reality.

>
> As I have mentioned elsewhere, gamma is not as simple as it seems.
>
> v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.

Oh you ignorant...
v in gamma is the speed, not velocity, therefore it is a scalar.

And you can multiply or square vectors.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

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

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/10/2017 5:55 PM, RLH wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:51:48 AM UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12/10/2017 2:32 AM, RLH wrote:
>>> Method of experiment:
>>>
>>> 2 spaceships approaching one another in interstellar space with a closing velocity of either v or 2v. They will meet/pass at a space station located at the 'centre' v is the relative velocity to the space station, 2v is the relative velocity ship to ship.
>>>
>>> Using pulses of light between them to determine distances. (Laser range finder)
>>> Using pulses of light locally to establish time. (light clock)
>>>
>>> Results.
>>>
>>> Well.....
>>>
>>>
>>> We have 3 inertial reference frames, one each for all of the vessels. Each has its co-ordinate system set to 0 as is required by inertial frames.
>>>
>>> I am unable to come with a diagram that respects SR.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. Your initial conditions already contradict SR, in that
>> you assume that if the ships each have a velocity v relative to the
>> space station, they'll have a velocity of 2v relative to each other. In
>> SR, they won't.
>>
>> Your scenario is over-constrained. You should leave out the bit about
>> the 2v.
>
> Sure. Add v + v how you like. Still only works for Newton.

Since you haven't provided any math, you're not saying anything.

Sylvia.

[RLH]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:19:05 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 12/10/2017 v 08:55 RLH napsal(a):
> >
> > Sure. Add v + v how you like. Still only works for Newton.
>
> But "Newton" does not work for observed reality.
> >
> > As I have mentioned elsewhere, gamma is not as simple as it seems.
> >
> > v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.
>
> Oh you ignorant...
> v in gamma is the speed, not velocity, therefore it is a scalar.
>
> And you can multiply or square vectors.

Oh no you can't.

vector multiplication is undefined for 2 vectors. You can do it with 3 or more but not 2.

[RLH]

As I said, plug in your values for vector addition as you will.

You haven't addressed to question.

The maths is above. Do you need me to repeat it?

[Sylvia Else]

Yes.

[Poutnik]

Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:26 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

> On 12/10/2017 5:55 PM, RLH wrote:
>>
>> Sure. Add v + v how you like. Still only works for Newton.
>
> Since you haven't provided any math, you're not saying anything.
>

I do not think he will ever provide anything of a value.

Even difference of scalar squares puts him into trouble,
being unable to distinguish speed and velocity from the formula context.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Speaking of math - it's always good to remind Your
idiot guru had to reject its oldest, very important
part, as it didn't want to match his ingenious
concepts.

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/10/2017 5:55 PM, RLH wrote:

> As I have mentioned elsewhere, gamma is not as simple as it seems.
>
> v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.
>

How strange that no one's noticed this problem in the last 112 years.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

Which math did he reject?

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Euclidean geometry. Didn't You hear of it?

[Poutnik]

Dne 12.10.2017 v 11:19 mlwo...@wp.pl napsal(a):

>
> Euclidean geometry. Didn't You hear of it?

It was rejected a long time before Einstein
for non Euclidean spaces, e.g. in spherical trigonometry.

The sum of triangle angles is not 180 degrees,
and the parallel lines intersect.

Did you hear about it ?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 12 października 2017 11:45:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 12.10.2017 v 11:19 mlwo...@wp.pl napsal(a):
> >
> > Euclidean geometry. Didn't You hear of it?
>
> It was rejected a long time before Einstein
> for non Euclidean spaces, e.g. in spherical trigonometry.
>
> The sum of triangle angles is not 180 degrees,
> and the parallel lines intersect.

Poor idiot.
1)Spherical triangle is no more triangle than Polish
Maradona is Maradona (compare the definitions if you
don't believe)
2)There is no parallel lines on sphere and in spherical
trigonometry
3)Only a complete crazie can insist that dealing
with spheres require rejeting Euclidean geometry.

[Poutnik]

Dne 12.10.2017 v 12:04 mlwo...@wp.pl napsal(a):

> W dniu czwartek, 12 października 2017 11:45:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
>> Dne 12.10.2017 v 11:19 mlwo...@wp.pl napsal(a):
>>>
>>> Euclidean geometry. Didn't You hear of it?
>>
>> It was rejected a long time before Einstein
>> for non Euclidean spaces, e.g. in spherical trigonometry.
>>
>> The sum of triangle angles is not 180 degrees,
>> and the parallel lines intersect.
>
> Poor idiot.

Nice to meet you, Poor idiot.

> 1)Spherical triangle is no more triangle than Polish
> Maradona is Maradona (compare the definitions if you
> don't believe)

Does it have three angles ?

> 2)There is no parallel lines on sphere and in spherical
> trigonometry

Tangentially, they are.
Engineers use them all the time.

> 3)Only a complete crazie can insist that dealing
> with spheres require rejeting Euclidean geometry.

Only a complete crazie may think
rejecting Euclidean geometry for non Euclidean spaces
means rejecting Euclidean geometry.

Only a complete crazie may want
to apply Euclidean geometry for non Euclidean space.

[Odd Bodkin]

RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.
>
>

There are in fact at least two ways to multiply vectors. Google dot product
and cross product.


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

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 12 października 2017 12:17:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 12.10.2017 v 12:04 mlwo...@wp.pl napsal(a):
> > W dniu czwartek, 12 października 2017 11:45:25 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> >> Dne 12.10.2017 v 11:19 mlwo...@wp.pl napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>> Euclidean geometry. Didn't You hear of it?
> >>
> >> It was rejected a long time before Einstein
> >> for non Euclidean spaces, e.g. in spherical trigonometry.
> >>
> >> The sum of triangle angles is not 180 degrees,
> >> and the parallel lines intersect.
> >
> > Poor idiot.
>
> Nice to meet you, Poor idiot.
>
> > 1)Spherical triangle is no more triangle than Polish
> > Maradona is Maradona (compare the definitions if you
> > don't believe)
>
> Does it have three angles ?

Yes, but if you knew what a triangle is you would know 3
angles are not enough. Of course, it would require reading
a definition. Reading definitions is sooo boring, isn't it,
poor idiot?

> > 2)There is no parallel lines on sphere and in spherical
> > trigonometry
>
> Tangentially, they are.

No, poor idiot. As the matter of fact, there are no
lines at all there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry

> Engineers use them all the time.

Another idiot knowing better what we do than we are.

[Paparios]

El jueves, 12 de octubre de 2017, 3:56:00 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:

>
> v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.

Wrong...see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_of_vectors

[RLH]

Strange indeed. But that's what happens if you let Logicians loose on Mathematicians and Scientists.

[RLH]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:17:28 AM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
> >
> > v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.
> >
> >
>
> There are in fact at least two ways to multiply vectors. Google dot product
> and cross product.

Neither is Multiply in the mathematical sense.

[Paparios]

What is "the mathematical sense"?

You are brain dead!

[Sylvia Else]

In Einstein's original paper (or at least, its English translation),
it's apparent that he's consistently using the term "velocity" to mean a
scalar quantity, not a vector, and the appearance of "v" in the
equations is intended to denote a scalar therefore.

Perhaps we'd have preferred him to use "speed" instead of "velocity",
but the words are often used interchangeably and almost no one gets
confused thereby.

This v is vector thing is a complete red-herring.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/10/2017 7:39 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:26 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
>> On 12/10/2017 5:55 PM, RLH wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure. Add v + v how you like. Still only works for Newton.
>>
>> Since you haven't provided any math, you're not saying anything.
>>
>
> I do not think he will ever provide anything of a value.

I'm starting to wonder whether he even knows what we mean by math.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that Your
idiot guru was forced to reject its oldest, very important
part, as it didn't want to match his ingenious ideas.

[RLH]

I realise that. But v is often used as a vector and not purely as a scalar quantity.

Thus

1 * v = -1 * v

where the 1/-1 indicates direction and the v the scalar magnitude is more correct for vectors.

You can't just mathematically merge direction with magnitude and think that nothing has happened.

[RLH]

I'm starting to wonder if everybody skipped logic classes.

Logic is 3 valued, not 2.

True, False, Impossible/No power/Something else :-)

[RLH]

Logic as applied to maths apparently.

[Paparios]

As a logician you are a very poor physicist and worst mathematician

[RLH]

Or if you prefer the same thing in different words/equations

direction 1 applied to magnitude v = direction -1 applied to magnitude v

No multiply in sight now.

[RLH]

As all of your work is probably done on machines driven by Logic, that makes Logicians the bookkeepers to both physicists and mathematicians.

[Odd Bodkin]

Are you a mathematician with the background to claim this? Or is this just
some opinion of the uneducated.

[RLH]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 2:20:29 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:17:28 AM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> .
> >>>
> >>> v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are in fact at least two ways to multiply vectors. Google dot product
> >> and cross product.
> >
> > Neither is Multiply in the mathematical sense.
> >
>
> Are you a mathematician with the background to claim this? Or is this just
> some opinion of the uneducated.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

MSc (Dist) in System Design i.e. Applied maths. You know, the ones who have to actually implement what pure mathematicians dream up.

So yes, I think I am very qualifies to talk about how you add, subtract, multiply and divide vectors.

I should have said earlier that not that you cannot multiply vectors but that you cannot do it in the way you are doing it. v, (+)v and -(v) are very different beasts.

You convert the (-)v and (+)v to v first. Then deal with the signs afterwards.

You most certainly do NOT just turn them to -v.

[RLH]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 2:20:29 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:17:28 AM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> .
> >>>
> >>> v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are in fact at least two ways to multiply vectors. Google dot product
> >> and cross product.
> >
> > Neither is Multiply in the mathematical sense.
> >
>
> Are you a mathematician with the background to claim this? Or is this just
> some opinion of the uneducated.

A small challenge for you.

If you were to draw 3 triangles of v, (-)v, and (+)v and calculate their hypotenuse, h, what would they look like and what would the answers to h be?

[RLH]

Dot product — also known as the "scalar product", an operation that takes two vectors and returns a scalar quantity.

Cross product — also known as the "vector product", a binary operation on two vectors that results in another vector. The cross product of two vectors in 3-space is defined as the vector perpendicular to the plane determined by the two vectors whose magnitude is the product of the magnitudes of the two vectors and the sine of the angle between the two vectors. So, if n is the unit vector perpendicular to the plane determined by vectors A and B,
A × B = ||A|| ||B|| sin θ n.

So the right angle triangles and the lack of care about v, (+)v or (-)v in the calculations except for plotting the output.

I would have been more correct to say earlier that you cannot do vector multiplication in the way you are doing it rather than you cannot do it. (Oops, sorry).

[RLH]

Sorry , should have added, height of c and said right angle triangles.

[Paparios]

Another useless "sorry" from you. You continue to write complete nonsensical
posts.

[Odd Bodkin]

Just to seed your head, how would you do any math operations for two
vectors whose directions differ by 32 degrees?

[Dono,]

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 9:22:01 AM UTC-7, RLH wrote:
>
> MSc (Dist) in System Design i.e. Applied maths. You know, the ones who have to actually implement what pure mathematicians dream up.
>

You are a liar. A pathological one.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 11-okt-2017 om 17:32 schreef RLH:
> Method of experiment:
>
> 2 spaceships approaching one another

KNAL!
BOENK!!
PATAT!!!

Dirk Vdm

[RLH]

I am discussing ones at 180 degrees. i.e. 1d

[RLH]

If you pay me I'll get a notary to verify it for you.

[Dono,]

You are a pathological liar. There is no way an imbecile like you went to college, let alone graduate.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Huygens attempted to measure the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter but at the position L the dark side of the earth (night) is not facing Jupiter. So, using KL that represents the earth orbital diameter that is used to calculate the velocity of light is not physically possible. All this ostensible abstract physics has cause this extremely embarrassing and humiliate situation. When I asked IBM Watson he replied "Flies eat banana bread." or something like that. Do you disagree that flies eat banana bread?

[RLH]

Pay a notary and I'll prove it. Otherwise quit with the ad hom.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

you do not know what the velocity of light is or rather it is const

[RLH]

Clarifications that either I saw or others asked is bad how?

[Dono,]

You are waaay too imbecile to have even graduated high school.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The purpose of SR is the justification of Maxwell's theory that is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor is induction an ionization or particle effect. Also, Planck's energy element has the units of the kinetic energy yet light is massless. Can you explain this?

[anne]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 3:03:51 AM UTC+1, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Huygens attempted to measure the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter but at the position L the dark side of the earth (night) is not facing Jupiter. So, using KL that represents the earth orbital diameter that is used to calculate the velocity of light is not physically possible. All this ostensible abstract physics has cause this extremely embarrassing and humiliate situation. When I asked IBM Watson he replied "Flies eat banana bread." or something like that. Do you disagree that flies eat banana bread?

time flies like an arrow
fruit flies prefer a peach
hope springs eternal
bedsprings creak

...or something like that

[RLH]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 3:06:32 AM UTC+1, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> you do not know what the velocity of light is or rather it is const

My laser range finder says different.

[RLH]

Apparently the flies are only allowed to go forwards. If they go backwards, everybody's heads fall off.

[anne]

ah! that could well account for the sound that a bee makes when it tries to fly backwards -- zzzzub, zzub, zz-ub, split-splat!

[RLH]

Now if you add that to the picture the one of a fly hitting a car at speed and consider that as the fly themselves, your words do indeed make some sense.

[Odd Bodkin]

Doing it in the general case teaches you how to do it correctly in the
collinear case.

[Odd Bodkin]

Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.

[RLH]

[RLH]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:36:07 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> I am discussing ones at 180 degrees. i.e. 1d
> >>
> >
> > Doing it in the general case teaches you how to do it correctly in the
> > collinear case.

Adding extra complications does not increase clarity.

180 degrees makes this a 1d case.

> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.

Ad hom. attack. Pity

[Poutnik]

Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:36 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):

> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just to seed your head, how would you do any math operations for two
>>>> vectors whose directions differ by 32 degrees?
>>>
>>> I am discussing ones at 180 degrees. i.e. 1d
>>
>> Doing it in the general case teaches you how to do it correctly in the
>> collinear case.
>
> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.

That implies he knew how...

--
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]

[RLH]

Ad hom. attacks are just so futile.

[RLH]

[RLH]

Now if you add that to the picture the one of a fly hitting a car at speed and consider that as the fly themselves, your words do indeed make some sense.

At the third attempt.

[Poutnik]

Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:54 RLH napsal(a):

> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:50:24 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:36 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to seed your head, how would you do any math operations for two
>>>>>> vectors whose directions differ by 32 degrees?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am discussing ones at 180 degrees. i.e. 1d
>>>>
>>>> Doing it in the general case teaches you how to do it correctly in the
>>>> collinear case.
>>>
>>> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.
>>
>> That implies he knew how...
>>
>

> Ad hom. attacks are just so futile.

Like if there was any.

When you manifest your knowledge, I will admit it.
When you manifest your ignorance, I will point it out.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 13 października 2017 19:38:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:54 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:50:24 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:36 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> >>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just to seed your head, how would you do any math operations for two
> >>>>>> vectors whose directions differ by 32 degrees?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am discussing ones at 180 degrees. i.e. 1d
> >>>>
> >>>> Doing it in the general case teaches you how to do it correctly in the
> >>>> collinear case.
> >>>
> >>> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.
> >>
> >> That implies he knew how...
> >>
> >
> > Ad hom. attacks are just so futile.
>
> Like if there was any.
>
> When you manifest your knowledge, I will admit it.
> When you manifest your ignorance, I will point it out.

Stop fucking, poor idiot. You don't even know what's
the difference between a triangle and a spherical
triangle.
As expected from a relativistic moron, of course.

[RLH]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 6:38:52 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:54 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:50:24 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:36 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> >>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just to seed your head, how would you do any math operations for two
> >>>>>> vectors whose directions differ by 32 degrees?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am discussing ones at 180 degrees. i.e. 1d
> >>>>
> >>>> Doing it in the general case teaches you how to do it correctly in the
> >>>> collinear case.
> >>>
> >>> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.
> >>
> >> That implies he knew how...
> >>
> >
> > Ad hom. attacks are just so futile.
>
> Like if there was any.
>
> When you manifest your knowledge, I will admit it.
> When you manifest your ignorance, I will point it out.

Or if you don't understand at first, you will respond with insults.

Try the "There are none so blind as those who will not see" for some thoughts.


At least that one didn't contain any ad hom. Do you require its definition. It's on the web if you want to look it up.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The purpose of SR is the justification of Maxwell's theory since in the 1800's Maxwell's theory was not accepted.

"In the 1880s many were seeking experimental evidence to establish the equivalence of light and electromagnetic propagation. James Clerk Maxwell's mathematical theory of 1873 had predicted that electromagnetic disturbances should propagate through space at the speed of light and should exhibit the wave-like characteristics of light propagation." http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture6/hertz/Hertz_exp.html


Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor is induction an ionization or particle effect since an expanding electromagnetic field cannot form a particle structure and Planck's energy element has the units of the kinetic energy yet light is massless. Also, an electromagnetic wave that is propagating at the velocity of light cannot be represented with the frequency of sound or directly produce sound waves. Can you explain these indiscretions of physics?

[RLH]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:23:23 PM UTC+1, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The purpose of SR is the justification of Maxwell's theory since in the 1800's Maxwell's theory was not accepted.

The maths did not work. A fix was needed. Einstein chose Newton. He could have chosen Maxwell and moved the gamma term to the opposite side of the equation.

F / gamma = ma

works perfectly well too. The ratios stay exactly the same so all experiments will produce the 'right' answer regardless of who is 'correct'.

[RLH]

In 1d there is only triangle. You require 3d to get to spherical triangles.

[Poutnik]

Dne 13/10/2017 v 21:43 RLH napsal(a):

> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 6:38:52 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:54 RLH napsal(a):
>>> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:50:24 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>>>> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:36 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
>>>>>

>>>>> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.
>>>>
>>>> That implies he knew how...
>>>>
>>> Ad hom. attacks are just so futile.
>>
>> Like if there was any.
>>
>> When you manifest your knowledge, I will admit it.
>> When you manifest your ignorance, I will point it out.
>
> Or if you don't understand at first, you will respond with insults.

That funny knowledge of physics
that a high school student can beat both hands in pockets ?

The only thing hard to understand is, what leads you to believe
you know physics better than the most.

It is not worthy of the effort of responding.

[RLH]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:45:45 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 13/10/2017 v 21:43 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 6:38:52 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:54 RLH napsal(a):
> >>> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:50:24 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >>>> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:36 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.
> >>>>
> >>>> That implies he knew how...
> >>>>
> >>> Ad hom. attacks are just so futile.
> >>
> >> Like if there was any.
> >>
> >> When you manifest your knowledge, I will admit it.
> >> When you manifest your ignorance, I will point it out.
> >
> > Or if you don't understand at first, you will respond with insults.
>
> That funny knowledge of physics
> that a high school student can beat both hands in pockets ?
>
> The only thing hard to understand is, what leads you to believe
> you know physics better than the most.

I don't 'know' physics in great degree as such. I have just had to implement a logical version of what is described as being it. I have spent a large amount of time trying to get a precise definitions and requirement sets that was actually possible to do anything with. You have no idea how sloppy some scientist are with making the fine details correct.

In a way, I was one of the bookkeepers who verified if what was asked added up and was logically correct.

> It is not worthy of the effort of responding.

And yet you do. Usually with no useful content.

[Carl Susumu]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:23:23 PM UTC+1, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The purpose of SR is the justification of Maxwell's theory since in the 1800's Maxwell's theory was not accepted.

The math did not work. A fix was needed. Einstein chose Newton.

_________________________________________________


This is untrue since Einstein's (1905) SR is based on Maxwell's equations.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

No. There is no triangle in 1d. You require 2d or more.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 13 października 2017 23:45:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 13/10/2017 v 21:43 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 6:38:52 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:54 RLH napsal(a):
> >>> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 4:50:24 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >>>> Dne 13.10.2017 v 17:36 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Plus, I think it’s pretty obvious you have forgotten how.
> >>>>
> >>>> That implies he knew how...
> >>>>
> >>> Ad hom. attacks are just so futile.
> >>
> >> Like if there was any.
> >>
> >> When you manifest your knowledge, I will admit it.
> >> When you manifest your ignorance, I will point it out.
> >
> > Or if you don't understand at first, you will respond with insults.
>
> That funny knowledge of physics
> that a high school student can beat both hands in pockets ?

[RLH]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:45:45 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:

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

Have you bothered to look at the "There are none so blind...." thread yet? I have a collection of points that have been raised and not yet answered with any degree of clarity.

I bet you think that sqrt(vector) is a real thing? That's the sort of mistake I have been trained to spot.

[RLH]

Einstein's work is about reconciling Maxwell's work (as the sums didn't add up).

It became obvious that a trend towards infinity needed to replace a linear function.

Einstein decided that changing Newton would make the sums add up. He was correct in that and so the work has stood the test of time (pun).

The question is, is that the only way that the sums can be made correct?

The other choice is that Maxwell's equation didn't contain the appropriate method of dealing with the fact that the propagation of EMF, light, etc. are limited to c. Surely it makes more sense to place a term dealing with that limit in Maxwell's work, not Newton's.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/12/17 10/12/17 6:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> In Einstein's original paper (or at least, its English translation), it's
> apparent that he's consistently using the term "velocity" to mean a scalar
> quantity, not a vector, and the appearance of "v" in the equations is intended
> to denote a scalar therefore.

Einstein wrote in German, which does not distinguish between the English words
"speed" and "velocity"; it uses the same word for both (die Geschwindigkeit).

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/12/17 10/12/17 6:11 AM, RLH wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:17:28 AM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> v is a vector. You can't multiply or square vectors, only scalars.
>> There are in fact at least two ways to multiply vectors. Google dot product
>> and cross product.
>
> Neither is Multiply in the mathematical sense.

Not true. You are thinking of the ARITHMETIC sense, apparently due to
insufficient knowledge of mathematics. It is straightforward to define vector
algebra in which multiplication is well defined.

That is, of course, irrelevant to discussions around here. In physics we use the
dot product between vectors, and write v.v = v^2. In the expression for \gamma,
it is this v^2 that appears.

Tom Roberts

[RLH]

It is not the definition of vector multiply that is in question. It is how you interpret an application of it that is.

See the comment about sqrt(-x) (imaginary) and -sqrt(x) (real)

If one were to express this in logic, x is NOT a signed number. Therefore you cannot apply a - to it.

The only option you have is to place it outside the function, as I have tried to point out rather a lot.

[Sylvia Else]

Thanks for that.

Sylvia.

[RLH]

Yup. I must remember to use that whenever someone gets picky about the distinction.