info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Velocity Postulate and the Velocity Uniqueness Theorem
154 views
Skip to first unread message
patdolan
May 22, 2022, 10:21:46 PM5/22/22
to
Velocity Postulate: Given the existence of space and time, there also exists a quality called motion. Motion is quantified by the property of velocity which is the ratio of duration in time to displacement in space.
[spacetime version: Given the existence of spacetime, there also exists a quality called motion. Motion is quantified by the property of velocity which is the ratio of displacement along the time axis to the displacements along the space axes.]
Velocity Uniqueness Theorem: It is a fundamental quality of motion that there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared between any pair of observers.
Equivalency corollary: Given a velocity value |v| shared between a pair of observers, each observer must be able to calculate that velocity value from the standpoint of his own FoR and from the standpoint of the other observer's FoR. Furthermore, all four of these velocity values must be identical.
Relativity corollary: All velocities shared between all pairs of observers must be less than the velocity of light.
The author pauses here to ask if there is a chump among you who would like to dispute the foregoing?
[spacetime version: Given the existence of spacetime, there also exists a quality called motion. Motion is quantified by the property of velocity which is the ratio of displacement along the time axis to the displacements along the space axes.]
Velocity Uniqueness Theorem: It is a fundamental quality of motion that there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared between any pair of observers.
Equivalency corollary: Given a velocity value |v| shared between a pair of observers, each observer must be able to calculate that velocity value from the standpoint of his own FoR and from the standpoint of the other observer's FoR. Furthermore, all four of these velocity values must be identical.
Relativity corollary: All velocities shared between all pairs of observers must be less than the velocity of light.
The author pauses here to ask if there is a chump among you who would like to dispute the foregoing?
Sylvia Else
May 23, 2022, 3:18:43 AM5/23/22
to
On 23-May-22 12:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
> Velocity Uniqueness Theorem: It is a fundamental quality of motion that there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared between any pair of observers.
If that's a theorem, where's the proof?
> Velocity Uniqueness Theorem: It is a fundamental quality of motion that there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared between any pair of observers.
Sylvia.
J. J. Lodder
May 23, 2022, 4:31:55 AM5/23/22
to
patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Velocity Postulate: Given the existence of space and time, there also
> exists a quality called motion. Motion is quantified by the property of
> velocity which is the ratio of duration in time to displacement in space.
Given Euclidean geometry there exist a quality called 'angle'.
> Velocity Postulate: Given the existence of space and time, there also
> exists a quality called motion. Motion is quantified by the property of
> velocity which is the ratio of duration in time to displacement in space.
It is the same for all Euclidean observers,
and it is independent of coordinates,
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
May 23, 2022, 4:47:52 AM5/23/22
to
exists pseudomathematical mumble.
patdolan
May 23, 2022, 12:12:46 PM5/23/22
to
Two observers, Stan and Townes. Using his co-moving coordinate system Stan determines that Townes is one light year away and traveling at .867c in his direction. Stan now calculates what Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving coordinate system.
Stan immediately perceives that Townes' co-moving coordinate system is contracted by a factor of two and that Towne's clock is ticking at half the rate of his own clock. These phenomena are not some sort of illusion. In Stan's FoR Townes really does measure that he moves two meters towards Stan for every one meter that Stan moves towards Townes. Furthermore, Stan measures that Townes' clock ticks off only half as much time as his own during the simultaneous distance intervals in the preceding sentence. When Stan and Townes pass one another, Stan watches Townes' hand moving at half speed as he writes down two light years distance divided by 0.5767 years to calculate Stan's velocity as 3.468c.
Sure, Townes will measure another velocity for Stan in his own FoR. But we are watching from Stan and Townes calculate velocity from Stan's FoR. [this also implies that SR is a "Many Worlds" theory.]
What has been accomplished: We have demonstrated that given the LTs and SR, the velocity two observers share between themselves can never be unique.
There is more to spin out but the author pauses here for his mathematical inferiors to catch the drift of his thought before proceeding.
Maciej Wozniak
May 23, 2022, 12:57:51 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 18:12:46 UTC+2, patdolan wrote:
> Two observers, Stan and Townes. Using his co-moving coordinate system Stan determines that Townes is one light year away and traveling at .867c in his direction. Stan now calculates what Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving coordinate system.
Nobody can calculate the output of a human brain.
> Two observers, Stan and Townes. Using his co-moving coordinate system Stan determines that Townes is one light year away and traveling at .867c in his direction. Stan now calculates what Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving coordinate system.
It's a pure bullshit.
Instead calculations a relativistic idiot is offering
arm waving and assertions that it will surely be
as he says.
Stan Fultoni
May 23, 2022, 3:04:21 PM5/23/22
to
On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:21:46 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> Velocity Postulate:
In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
> [spacetime version...
There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
> ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> Given a velocity value |v| shared between a pair of observers...
Translation: Given two systems of standard inertia-based coordinates S and S' with mutual velocity v...
> ...each observer must be able to calculate that velocity value from the standpoint
> of his own FoR...
It's pointless to talk in terms of "what an observer must be able to calculate", because on observer could be someone like you, who can't calculate his way out of a paper bag. The propositions of physics are objective facts, not assertions about anyone's ability to calculate things. What you need to say is that given the velocity of an object in terms of one coordinate system, and given the relationship between that coordinate system and some other coordinate system, the velocity of the object in terms of that other system is fully specified.
> and from the standpoint of the other observer's FoR. Furthermore, all four of these velocity values must be identical.
Four? Again, a given object at a given event has a specific velocity in terms of any specified system of coordinates. So far you are just talking about two systems of coordinates, and you seem to b tacitly assuming they are inertial coordinate systems, which we can call S and S', and each object has a velocity in terms of those two coordinate systems (not four). As noted above, an object with dx/dt = 0 has d'x/dt' = -v, and an object with d'x/dt'=0 has dx/dt = v. If those are the four velocities you are talking about, they are not identical, two are zero and one is v and the other is -v.
> Relativity corollary: All velocities shared between all pairs of observers must be less than the velocity of light.
No, that's isn't a corollary, and it isn't the relativity principle. It's a complete non-sequitur from what you have said.
> Stan now calculates what Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving coordinate system.
If the "co-moving coordinate systems" you are referring to are standard inertia-based coordinate systems S and S' in which the two objects are at rest, then the object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and the object at rest in S has velocity -v in terms of S'. These are objective facts. Of course, we can refer to other systems of coordinates... for example, we could use the time coordinate from S and the space coordinates of S', or vice versa, and these resulting hybrid coordinate systems would have different velocities, but these are not standard inertial coordinate systems. Again, there are infinitely many coordinate systems (in fact, there are infinitely many in which a given object is at rest), and every object has infinitely many velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. So nothing that you are saying makes any sense.
> Velocity Postulate:
In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
> [spacetime version...
There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
> ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> between any pair of observers.
That doesn't make sense. Velocity is as defined above, dx/dt in terms of any specified system of coordinates. There are infinitely many systems of coordinates, and entities have infinitely many different velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. What you might be trying to say is that for two standard systems of inertial coordinates S and S', with aligned space axes, objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity -v in terms of S'. But these are by no means the only possible coordinate systems that can be defined, and hence those objects have any other velocities in terms of many other coordinate systems. It is necessary always to specify the coordinate system when referring to a velocity.
> Given a velocity value |v| shared between a pair of observers...
Translation: Given two systems of standard inertia-based coordinates S and S' with mutual velocity v...
> ...each observer must be able to calculate that velocity value from the standpoint
> of his own FoR...
It's pointless to talk in terms of "what an observer must be able to calculate", because on observer could be someone like you, who can't calculate his way out of a paper bag. The propositions of physics are objective facts, not assertions about anyone's ability to calculate things. What you need to say is that given the velocity of an object in terms of one coordinate system, and given the relationship between that coordinate system and some other coordinate system, the velocity of the object in terms of that other system is fully specified.
> and from the standpoint of the other observer's FoR. Furthermore, all four of these velocity values must be identical.
> Relativity corollary: All velocities shared between all pairs of observers must be less than the velocity of light.
> Stan now calculates what Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving coordinate system.
Maciej Wozniak
May 23, 2022, 3:23:09 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 21:04:21 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:21:46 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > Velocity Postulate:
>
> In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event.
A common sense prejudice, refuted by your insane gurus
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:21:46 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > Velocity Postulate:
>
> In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event.
with their inflation nonsense.
patdolan
May 23, 2022, 4:02:57 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 12:04:21 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:21:46 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > Velocity Postulate:
>
> In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
>
> > [spacetime version...
>
> There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
>
> > ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> > between any pair of observers.
> That doesn't make sense. Velocity is as defined above, dx/dt in terms of any specified system of coordinates. There are infinitely many systems of coordinates, and entities have infinitely many different velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. What you might be trying to say is that for two standard systems of inertial coordinates S and S', with aligned space axes, objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity -v in terms of S'. But these are by no means the only possible coordinate systems that can be defined, and hence those objects have any other velocities in terms of many other coordinate systems. It is necessary always to specify the coordinate system when referring to a velocity.
Stownes, you never take the time to read. Or you just can't get beyond the cookie cutter thinking you've ingested. So you react in a knee jerk fashion like an animal striking at a perceived threat.
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:21:46 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > Velocity Postulate:
>
> In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
>
> > [spacetime version...
>
> There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
>
> > ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> > between any pair of observers.
> That doesn't make sense. Velocity is as defined above, dx/dt in terms of any specified system of coordinates. There are infinitely many systems of coordinates, and entities have infinitely many different velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. What you might be trying to say is that for two standard systems of inertial coordinates S and S', with aligned space axes, objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity -v in terms of S'. But these are by no means the only possible coordinate systems that can be defined, and hence those objects have any other velocities in terms of many other coordinate systems. It is necessary always to specify the coordinate system when referring to a velocity.
To have infinitely many coordinate systems is tantamount to having infinitely many observers. In this problem I have limited the observers/coordinate systems to only two, Stan's and Townes' co-moving coordinate systems. Think that over. These two coordinate systems/observers have but one single velocity magnitude |v| that they share between each other, according to the LTs. Of course, now that I have proved that this is not the case....
Stan Fultoni
May 23, 2022, 6:41:07 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 1:02:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > Velocity Postulate:
> >
> > In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
> >
> > > [spacetime version...
> >
> > There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
> >
> > > ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> > > between any pair of observers.
> > That doesn't make sense. Velocity is as defined above, dx/dt in terms of any specified system of coordinates. There are infinitely many systems of coordinates, and entities have infinitely many different velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. What you might be trying to say is that for two standard systems of inertial coordinates S and S', with aligned space axes, objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity -v in terms of S'. But these are by no means the only possible coordinate systems that can be defined, and hence those objects have any other velocities in terms of many other coordinate systems. It is necessary always to specify the coordinate system when referring to a velocity.
>
> > > Velocity Postulate:
> >
> > In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
> >
> > > [spacetime version...
> >
> > There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
> >
> > > ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> > > between any pair of observers.
> > That doesn't make sense. Velocity is as defined above, dx/dt in terms of any specified system of coordinates. There are infinitely many systems of coordinates, and entities have infinitely many different velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. What you might be trying to say is that for two standard systems of inertial coordinates S and S', with aligned space axes, objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity -v in terms of S'. But these are by no means the only possible coordinate systems that can be defined, and hence those objects have any other velocities in terms of many other coordinate systems. It is necessary always to specify the coordinate system when referring to a velocity.
>
> To have infinitely many coordinate systems is tantamount to having infinitely many observers.
Nope, you are mistakenly conflating "observers" with coordinate systems, one of the most common newbie mistakes. Every object is at rest in terms of infinitely many coordinate systems, with distinct temporal foliations, so there is no unique system of coordinates in which an object is at rest.
> In this problem I have limited the ... coordinate systems to only two, [the two objects]
> co-moving coordinate systems.
I already spoonfed you your unexamined stipulations, pointing out that you are (unwittingly) referring to the standard inertial coordinate systems, S and S', in which the two object are respectively at rest.
> Given a velocity value |v| shared between a pair of observers...
Translation: Given two systems of standard inertia-based coordinates S and S' with mutual velocity v...
> ...each observer must be able to calculate that velocity value from the standpoint
> of his own FoR...
> and from the standpoint of the other observer's FoR. Furthermore, all four of these velocity values must be identical.
> Relativity corollary: All velocities shared between all pairs of observers must be less than the velocity of light.
> Stan now calculates what Townes will say Stan's velocity is according to Townes' co-moving coordinate system.
Of course, we could refer to other systems of coordinates... for example, we could use the time coordinate from S and the space coordinates of S', or vice versa, and the resulting hybrid coordinate systems would have different velocities, but these are not standard inertial coordinate systems. Again, there are infinitely many coordinate systems (in fact, there are infinitely many in which a given object is at rest), and every object has infinitely many velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. So nothing that you are saying makes any sense. Now do you understand?
patdolan
May 23, 2022, 10:00:14 PM5/23/22
to
To that end we now introduce the concept of the reciprocating velocities ratio. To calculate the reciprocating velocities ratio between a pair of FoRs imagine two observers, Stan and Townes, at rest at the origins of their respective co-moving FoRs. Stan now calculates the reciprocating velocities ratio for Townes in a Galilean universe.
1) Using his own co-moving FoR Stan finds that Townes is moving towards him at .867c.
2) Then Stan uses the Galilean Transformations to determine that Townes, at rest at the origin of his own FoR, will measure that Stan is moving towards him at .867c also.
3) Stan takes the ratio of these reciprocating velocities and finds it is equal to 1.0
Stan now repeats the calculation of the reciprocating velocities ratio in an Einsteinian universe:
1) Measuring by means of his own FoR Stan, at rest at the origin, finds that Townes is moving towards him at .867c.
2) Then Stan uses the Lorentz Transformations to determine that Townes, at rest at the origin of his own Lorentz-contracted & time-dilated FoR, will simultaneously measure that Stan is moving towards him at 3.468c.
Keep in mind that in the uncontracted-undilated version of his FoR, a version of Townes will find that Stan is moving towards him at .867c. But that Townes is not the same Townes in Stan's FoR moving towards Stan at .867c. A many-worlds camel thus sticks its nose under the Special Relativity tent.
3) Stan takes the ratio of these reciprocating velocities and finds that it is equal to gamma^2 in an Einstein-Lorentz Universe. Recall that in a Galilean Universe the ratio is always 1.0
Stan Fultoni
May 23, 2022, 11:01:28 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:00:14 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> 1) Using his own co-moving FoR Stan finds that Townes is moving towards him at .867c.
Translation: Stan is at rest (at the origin, say) in the standard inertial coordinate system S, and Townes is at rest (as some negative x' value) in the standard (aligned) inertial coordinate system S' moving with speed v = sqrt(3)/2 in terms of S.
> 1) Using his own co-moving FoR Stan finds that Townes is moving towards him at .867c.
> 2) Townes, at rest at the origin of his own FoR, will measure that Stan is moving
> towards him at .867c also.
Well, if they are both at rest at the spatial origins of inertial coordinate systems, and they are approaching each other, and their origins coincide (standard configuration), they must be at negative time coordinates. You are again conflating observers/objects with coordinate systems, which is leading you into the error explained in the previous message.
> 3) Stan takes the ratio of these reciprocating velocities and finds it is equal to 1.0
> 1) Measuring by means of his own FoR Stan, at rest at the origin, finds that Townes
> is moving towards him at .867c.
> 2) Then Stan uses the Lorentz Transformations to determine that Townes, at rest
> at the origin of his own Lorentz-contracted & time-dilated FoR, will simultaneously
> measure that Stan is moving towards him at 3.468c.
> In the uncontracted-undilated version of his FoR...
There are not multiple versions of the two systems of coordinates that you are referring to, there is S and S', and the objects have the stipulated speeds in terms of those two systems. If you wish to define another system of coordinates (as explained in the previous message), you are free to do so, but that doesn't change the speeds of the objects in terms of S and S'.
Remember, the coordinates of any event in terms of a given system of inertial coordinates S are the readings on a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in S. Likewise for S'. These readings are what they are, empirically, without any reference to how S and S' are related to each other. After making these measurements, we note that S and S' are related by a Lorentz transformation. This accounts both for the reciprocal velocities and for all the effects of time dilations, length contraction, and skew of simultaneity. Do you understand this now?
patdolan
May 23, 2022, 11:13:12 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:01:28 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:00:14 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > 1) Using his own co-moving FoR Stan finds that Townes is moving towards him at .867c.
> Translation: Stan is at rest (at the origin, say) in the standard inertial coordinate system S, and Townes is at rest (as some negative x' value) in the standard (aligned) inertial coordinate system S' moving with speed v = sqrt(3)/2 in terms of S.
>
> > 2) Townes, at rest at the origin of his own FoR, will measure that Stan is moving
> > towards him at .867c also.
> Well, if they are both at rest at the spatial origins of inertial coordinate systems, and they are approaching each other, and their origins coincide (standard configuration), they must be at negative time coordinates. You are again conflating observers/objects with coordinate systems, which is leading you into the error explained in the previous message.
> > 3) Stan takes the ratio of these reciprocating velocities and finds it is equal to 1.0
> Again, given two systems of inertial coordinates S and S' in standard configuration, if S' is moving at velocity v in terms of S, then S is moving at velocity -v in terms of S'. This would be true in your hypothetical universe with S and S' related by Galilean transformation, and it is true in the actual universe with S and S' related by Lorentz transformation. Duh.
> > 1) Measuring by means of his own FoR Stan, at rest at the origin, finds that Townes
> > is moving towards him at .867c.
> Again, this is specified as part of the condition, i.e., S' is moving at speed v in terms of S.
> > 2) Then Stan uses the Lorentz Transformations to determine that Townes, at rest
> > at the origin of his own Lorentz-contracted & time-dilated FoR, will simultaneously
> > measure that Stan is moving towards him at 3.468c.
> Nope, everyone agrees, and can verify by measurement, that objects at rest in S' are moving at speed v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S are moving at speed -v in terms of S'. Again, this would be true in your hypothetical universe with S and S' related by Galilean transformation, and it is true in the actual universe with S and S' related by Lorentz transformation. Duh.
>
> > In the uncontracted-undilated version of his FoR...
>
> There are not multiple versions of the two systems of coordinates that you are referring to, there is S and S', and the objects have the stipulated speeds in terms of those two systems. If you wish to define another system of coordinates (as explained in the previous message), you are free to do so, but that doesn't change the speeds of the objects in terms of S and S'.
Stownes,
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:00:14 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > 1) Using his own co-moving FoR Stan finds that Townes is moving towards him at .867c.
> Translation: Stan is at rest (at the origin, say) in the standard inertial coordinate system S, and Townes is at rest (as some negative x' value) in the standard (aligned) inertial coordinate system S' moving with speed v = sqrt(3)/2 in terms of S.
>
> > 2) Townes, at rest at the origin of his own FoR, will measure that Stan is moving
> > towards him at .867c also.
> Well, if they are both at rest at the spatial origins of inertial coordinate systems, and they are approaching each other, and their origins coincide (standard configuration), they must be at negative time coordinates. You are again conflating observers/objects with coordinate systems, which is leading you into the error explained in the previous message.
> > 3) Stan takes the ratio of these reciprocating velocities and finds it is equal to 1.0
> Again, given two systems of inertial coordinates S and S' in standard configuration, if S' is moving at velocity v in terms of S, then S is moving at velocity -v in terms of S'. This would be true in your hypothetical universe with S and S' related by Galilean transformation, and it is true in the actual universe with S and S' related by Lorentz transformation. Duh.
> > 1) Measuring by means of his own FoR Stan, at rest at the origin, finds that Townes
> > is moving towards him at .867c.
> Again, this is specified as part of the condition, i.e., S' is moving at speed v in terms of S.
> > 2) Then Stan uses the Lorentz Transformations to determine that Townes, at rest
> > at the origin of his own Lorentz-contracted & time-dilated FoR, will simultaneously
> > measure that Stan is moving towards him at 3.468c.
> Nope, everyone agrees, and can verify by measurement, that objects at rest in S' are moving at speed v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S are moving at speed -v in terms of S'. Again, this would be true in your hypothetical universe with S and S' related by Galilean transformation, and it is true in the actual universe with S and S' related by Lorentz transformation. Duh.
>
> > In the uncontracted-undilated version of his FoR...
>
> There are not multiple versions of the two systems of coordinates that you are referring to, there is S and S', and the objects have the stipulated speeds in terms of those two systems. If you wish to define another system of coordinates (as explained in the previous message), you are free to do so, but that doesn't change the speeds of the objects in terms of S and S'.
I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument in terms of S and S' then translating it into my terms of Stan and Townes. Please recast your entire post interns of Stan and Townes. Thank you.
Stan Fultoni
May 23, 2022, 11:20:41 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:13:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument in terms of S and S' then translating
> it into my terms of Stan and Townes. Please recast your entire post interns of Stan
> and Townes.
Again, among the many conceptual mistakes you are making is the conflating of people with coordinate systems. Repeat after me: People are not coordinate systems. You are stipulating that any object (or person) at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object (or person) at rest in S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This is independent of whether S and S' are related to each other by Galilean transformation or Lorentz transformation. Now do you understand?
> I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument in terms of S and S' then translating
> it into my terms of Stan and Townes. Please recast your entire post interns of Stan
> and Townes.
patdolan
May 23, 2022, 11:40:42 PM5/23/22
to
Stan Fultoni
May 23, 2022, 11:53:16 PM5/23/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:40:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument in terms of S and S' then translating
> > > it into my terms of Stan and Townes. Please recast your entire post interns of Stan
> > > and Townes.
> >
> > Again, among the many conceptual mistakes you are making is the conflating of people with coordinate systems. Repeat after me: People are not coordinate systems. You are stipulating that any object (or person) at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object (or person) at rest in S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This is independent of whether S and S' are related to each other by Galilean transformation or Lorentz transformation. Now do you understand?
>
> Are you kidding?
No, my thorough and succinct debunking of your misconceptions is correct. Which part of it do you think is wrong or unclear?
> > > I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument in terms of S and S' then translating
> > > it into my terms of Stan and Townes. Please recast your entire post interns of Stan
> > > and Townes.
> >
> > Again, among the many conceptual mistakes you are making is the conflating of people with coordinate systems. Repeat after me: People are not coordinate systems. You are stipulating that any object (or person) at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object (or person) at rest in S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This is independent of whether S and S' are related to each other by Galilean transformation or Lorentz transformation. Now do you understand?
>
> Are you kidding?
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 12:06:36 AM5/24/22
to
Again Stownes, there is nothing in your words which is clearly recognizable. Please use my words.
Maciej Wozniak
May 24, 2022, 12:12:33 AM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 00:41:07 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 1:02:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Velocity Postulate:
> > >
> > > In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
> > >
> > > > [spacetime version...
> > >
> > > There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
> > >
> > > > ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> > > > between any pair of observers.
> > > That doesn't make sense. Velocity is as defined above, dx/dt in terms of any specified system of coordinates. There are infinitely many systems of coordinates, and entities have infinitely many different velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. What you might be trying to say is that for two standard systems of inertial coordinates S and S', with aligned space axes, objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity -v in terms of S'. But these are by no means the only possible coordinate systems that can be defined, and hence those objects have any other velocities in terms of many other coordinate systems. It is necessary always to specify the coordinate system when referring to a velocity.
> >
> > To have infinitely many coordinate systems is tantamount to having infinitely many observers.
> Nope, you are mistakenly conflating "observers" with coordinate systems, one of the most common newbie mistakes. Every object is at rest in terms of infinitely many coordinate systems, with distinct temporal foliations, so there is no unique system of coordinates in which an object is at rest.
>
> > In this problem I have limited the ... coordinate systems to only two, [the two objects]
> > co-moving coordinate systems.
>
> I already spoonfed you your unexamined stipulations, pointing out that you are (unwittingly) referring to the standard inertial coordinate systems, S and S', in which the two object are respectively at rest.
> > Given a velocity value |v| shared between a pair of observers...
>
> Translation: Given two systems of standard inertia-based coordinates S and S' with mutual velocity v...
>
> > ...each observer must be able to calculate that velocity value from the standpoint
> > of his own FoR...
> It's pointless to talk in terms of "what an observer must be able to calculate", because an observer could be someone like you, who can't calculate his way out of a paper bag. The propositions of physics are objective facts, not assertions about anyone's ability to calculate things.
In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 1:02:57 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Velocity Postulate:
> > >
> > > In physics, in terms of any operationally-defined system of coordinates x,t, and for any given trajectory x=f(t), at any given event, the quantity dx/dt is defined as the "velocity" of that trajectory at that event. This is the definition of the word "velocity", it is not a postulate.
> > >
> > > > [spacetime version...
> > >
> > > There is no separate "spacetime version" distinct from the standard historical definition of the word "velocity", as given above.
> > >
> > > > ... there can exist at most one instantaneous velocity magnitude ||v|| shared
> > > > between any pair of observers.
> > > That doesn't make sense. Velocity is as defined above, dx/dt in terms of any specified system of coordinates. There are infinitely many systems of coordinates, and entities have infinitely many different velocities, depending on which system of coordinates you are referring to. What you might be trying to say is that for two standard systems of inertial coordinates S and S', with aligned space axes, objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity -v in terms of S'. But these are by no means the only possible coordinate systems that can be defined, and hence those objects have any other velocities in terms of many other coordinate systems. It is necessary always to specify the coordinate system when referring to a velocity.
> >
> > To have infinitely many coordinate systems is tantamount to having infinitely many observers.
> Nope, you are mistakenly conflating "observers" with coordinate systems, one of the most common newbie mistakes. Every object is at rest in terms of infinitely many coordinate systems, with distinct temporal foliations, so there is no unique system of coordinates in which an object is at rest.
>
> > In this problem I have limited the ... coordinate systems to only two, [the two objects]
> > co-moving coordinate systems.
>
> I already spoonfed you your unexamined stipulations, pointing out that you are (unwittingly) referring to the standard inertial coordinate systems, S and S', in which the two object are respectively at rest.
> > Given a velocity value |v| shared between a pair of observers...
>
> Translation: Given two systems of standard inertia-based coordinates S and S' with mutual velocity v...
>
> > ...each observer must be able to calculate that velocity value from the standpoint
> > of his own FoR...
> It's pointless to talk in terms of "what an observer must be able to calculate", because an observer could be someone like you, who can't calculate his way out of a paper bag. The propositions of physics are objective facts, not assertions about anyone's ability to calculate things.
assertions GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.
Sylvia Else
May 24, 2022, 12:26:19 AM5/24/22
to
which you also are.
Sylvia.
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 12:29:52 AM5/24/22
to
You always end your posts by asking if I understand. Answer me one simple question to let me understand if you are an honest arguer or a dishonest obscurantist. This simple question goes to the heart of your honesty and integrity. Here is the questions Stan Fultoni:
Are you now, or have you ever been Townes Olson?
Stan Fultoni
May 24, 2022, 12:31:28 AM5/24/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:06:36 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Again, among the many conceptual mistakes you are making is the conflating of people with coordinate systems. Repeat after me: People are not coordinate systems. You are stipulating that any object (or person) at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object (or person) at rest in S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This is independent of whether S and S' are related to each other by Galilean transformation or Lorentz transformation. Now do you understand?
> > >
> > > Are you kidding?
> >
> > No, my thorough and succinct debunking of your misconceptions is correct. Which part of it do you think is wrong or unclear?
>
> There is nothing in your words which is clearly recognizable.
> > > > Again, among the many conceptual mistakes you are making is the conflating of people with coordinate systems. Repeat after me: People are not coordinate systems. You are stipulating that any object (or person) at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object (or person) at rest in S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This is independent of whether S and S' are related to each other by Galilean transformation or Lorentz transformation. Now do you understand?
> > >
> > > Are you kidding?
> >
> > No, my thorough and succinct debunking of your misconceptions is correct. Which part of it do you think is wrong or unclear?
>
Any mentally competent person with even a passing acquaintance with elementary physics would have no difficulty understanding what I've said. It may well be true that you do not understand a word of what I've said, but that is because of your limitations, not because the explanation is incorrect or even unclear. Your refusal to even ask for clarification speaks volumes: You don't want to understand.
> Please use my words... use my definitions when addressing my problems.
Your problems are due to the fact that your words and definitions are all self-indulgent infantile gibberish. I've explained this very clearly, giving detailed explanations of why each of your definitions and statements was wrong, and then I provided the correct statements. You're welcome. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. (As always, I suggest you wait until you sober up before replying.)
Stan Fultoni
May 24, 2022, 12:37:54 AM5/24/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:29:52 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 12:49:01 AM5/24/22
to
Stwones, you simply will never understand math until you also understand linguistics and semiotics, the signifier and the signified.
You continue to offer me answers to everything but the one question I asked of you, Stan Fultoni:
Are you now, or have you ever been Townes Olson????
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 12:55:26 AM5/24/22
to
Sylvia Else
May 24, 2022, 1:20:37 AM5/24/22
to
are a consequence of projections from one coordinate system to another.
They are special cases of the Lorentz transform, and people frequently
try to use them inappropriately in arguments, and reach mistaken
conclusions thereby. Whether or not they are real depends very much on
your precise definition of "real", and is a question for philosophy.
In your scenario, each person will use their own clocks and metre rules
to determine the relative velocity, and they will both reach the same
conclusion.
The real test of SR is whether its use results in the correct
predictions of what can be measured, and it does.
Sylvia.
Stan Fultoni
May 24, 2022, 1:48:48 AM5/24/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> >
> > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
>
> I do not dispute it.
Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
> > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> >
> > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
>
> I do not dispute it.
> Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
> ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> the same as yours.
Sylvia Else wrote:
> As has been repeatedly pointed out, length contraction and time dilation
> are a consequence of projections from one coordinate system to another.
Maciej Wozniak
May 24, 2022, 1:51:16 AM5/24/22
to
> The real test of SR is whether its use results in the correct
> predictions of what can be measured, and it does.
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 1:55:38 AM5/24/22
to
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that straight up relativity can lead to very false results in flat spacetime:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf
These two [ soon to be historic ] documents stand as testimony to the falsification of special relativity in flat spacetime.
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 2:02:53 AM5/24/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> > >
> > > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> >
> > I do not dispute it.
> Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
>
> > Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
>
> That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
>
> > ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
>
> Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> > Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.
> > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> > at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> > length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> > the same as yours.
> That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.
Without demonstration you are just composing encomiums to relativity. Use the relativity of simultaneity to rescue the situation Stownes. I dare you. It's too damned convoluted for you to do so. I dare you to prove your cheap talk.
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> > >
> > > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> >
> > I do not dispute it.
> Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
>
> > Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
>
> That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
>
> > ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
>
> Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> > Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.
> > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> > at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> > length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> > the same as yours.
> That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.
Stan Fultoni, please do not acknowledge this sentence if you are now, or ever have been Townes Olson.
Stan Fultoni
May 24, 2022, 2:39:04 AM5/24/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:02:53 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> > > >
> > > > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> > >
> > > I do not dispute it.
> > Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
> >
> > > Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
> >
> > That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
> >
> > > ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
> >
> > Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> > > Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> > No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.
> > > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> > > at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> > > length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> > > the same as yours.
> > That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.
>
> Without demonstration...
> > > > > People are co-moving observers when they are at rest at the origin of coordinate systems.
> > > >
> > > > Yet again (please try to concentrate), every object is at rest at the origin of infinitely many different systems of coordinates, with different temporal foliations, so you cannot specify a coordinate system by just referring to a person or object. You absolutely must specify the coordinate system, such as the inertial coordinate system S in terms of which the person or object is at rest (at a specific event). Do you dispute this?
> > >
> > > I do not dispute it.
> > Great. So, you have introduced two standard systems of inertial coordinates, S and S', and you acknowledge that any object at rest in S' has velocity v in terms of S, and any object at rest in terms of S has velocity -v in terms of S'. This would all be true if S and S' were related by a Galilean transformation, and it is true with S and S' related by a Lorentz transformation.
> >
> > > Your mind is too small to substitute Stan for S and Townes for S'.
> >
> > That's crazy, since Stan is presumably a person whereas S is a system of inertial coordinates. Now, if you just want to use the string "S-t-a-n" as a synonym for the string "S", without imputing to it any connotation of being a person, then you are free to do so, but of course that would be a pointless and stupid thing to do.
> >
> > > ...it comes down to this: are length contraction and time dilation real?
> >
> > Sure they are, and to understand this you must distinguish between passive and active transformations. Describing a certain undisturbed object in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates is just a passive transformation, and even in a hypothetical Galilean universe we could subject the descriptions of objects to passive Lorentz transformations, so nothing can be asserted from this alone. The essential fact arises when subjecting a solid object to (sufficiently gentle) acceleration, and describing it before and after the acceleration in terms of a single system of coordinates. This is an active transformation, and this shows the effects of Lorentz invariance of the laws of physics governing the form of the object. We then use the same pattern for passive descriptive transformations, to exploit the relativistic symmetry. So, yes, length contraction and time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (which you omitted) are definitely "real", in the sense of being empirically verifiable and objective facts.
> > > Or are they illusionary mirages and plays on light?
> > No, they are neither mirages nor plays on light. Not at all.
> > > A person whose brain, wristwatch and pocket calculator are all functioning
> > > at half the rate of yours and whose outstretched arm and ruler are half the
> > > length of yours simply can never accept that the velocity you assign him is
> > > the same as yours.
> > That is false, and the reason for your incomprehension is that you are accounting for only 2/3 of the relativistic effects, as noted above. Again, Lorentz invariance implies time dilation, length contractions, and (most importantly, but often overlooked by clueless newbies) the relativity of simultaneity. It is this third element that enables the reconciliation. Indeed this is what Einstein is most famous for, i.e., the realization of the relativity of simultaneity. Without this crucial third ingredient, special relativity (Lorentz invariance) would be logically impossible.
>
That's a lie. This has all been demonstrated to you quite explicitly and thoroughly. Yet again, the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. What part of this do you dispute?
Maciej Wozniak
May 24, 2022, 2:50:21 AM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 08:39:04 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> That's a lie. This has all been demonstrated to you quite explicitly and thoroughly. Yet again, the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of
> That's a lie. This has all been demonstrated to you quite explicitly and thoroughly. Yet again, the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
J. J. Lodder
May 24, 2022, 3:43:17 AM5/24/22
to
Lorentz contraction is not a physical change to the bar.
> They are special cases of the Lorentz transform, and people frequently
> try to use them inappropriately in arguments, and reach mistaken
> conclusions thereby. Whether or not they are real depends very much on
> your precise definition of "real", and is a question for philosophy.
thought that Lorentz contraction was a real physical effect.
This was based on the Lorentz aether theory
combined with the Lorentz theory of electrons.
People tried to search for physical consequences of Lorentz contraction
that could be tested.
For example: would a glass bar become bi-refringent
by being Lorentz-contracted by moving through the aether?
Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
May 24, 2022, 5:04:43 AM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
J. J. Lodder
May 24, 2022, 5:35:53 AM5/24/22
to
(but it takes an Einstein to see it)
But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
May 24, 2022, 6:36:47 AM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:35:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
> >
> > Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.
And forbidden by your idiotic religion TAI and GPS
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
> >
> > Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
always did.
> But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,
Easy one - GPS clocks are corrected for it.
rotchm
May 24, 2022, 8:02:11 AM5/24/22
to
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:40:42 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote:
> Are you kidding? No one ever understands you Townes.
A lie on your part. I, as any other smart person, understands him.
> Are you kidding? No one ever understands you Townes.
Then again, you are here just trolling.
Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same to each of your posts.
J. J. Lodder
May 24, 2022, 9:38:44 AM5/24/22
to
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
May 24, 2022, 9:58:04 AM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 15:38:44 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:35:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > > > > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
> > > >
> > > > Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> > > Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.
> >
> > And forbidden by your idiotic religion TAI and GPS
> > keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> > always did.
> >
> > > But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,
> >
> > Easy one - GPS clocks are corrected for it.
> That's a new one. Please explain,
Simple - the model applied in GPS is not made by your bunch
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:35:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:43:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Of course Einstein 1905 killed all that by making all motion
> > > > > with respect to the aether undetectable in principle.
> > > >
> > > > Of course he didn't. Enchanting the reality rarely works.
> > > Reality doesn't need to be enchanted, it is enchanting by itself.
> >
> > And forbidden by your idiotic religion TAI and GPS
> > keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
> > always did.
> >
> > > But feel free to see an aether drift, if you can,
> >
> > Easy one - GPS clocks are corrected for it.
> That's a new one. Please explain,
of religious maniacs. It's not assuming your Holiest Postulate,
it's assuming special/ether frame (ECI), and that the
clocks moving in it are to be corrected. Nothing for your tiny
fanatic halfbrain, I'm afraid.
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 12:52:21 PM5/24/22
to
Furthermore, I offer as proof the example that has silenced Sylvia and was confirmed by Professor Paul A. Anderson.
Stan Fultoni
May 24, 2022, 2:38:36 PM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> Two observers closing in on each other will not agree on the speed at which they
> are closing.
That is untrue, and this has been thoroughly explained to you. Without being able to take the algebraic inverse of a simple pair of linear equations, you seem to be out of your depth here. Again, objects at rest in S' have velocity dx/dt = v in terms of S, and objects at rest in S have velocity dx'/dt' = -v in terms of S'. You can verify this yourself from the above relations - once you successfully pass 4th grade algebra and learn how to do that.
> I posit my many calculations using the Lorentz Transforms, as my proof.
You should also take 4th grade English and learn the meanings of words like "posit". Also, remember that all of your attempted "calculations" have been shown to be completely fallacious nonsense.
> > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> > x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of
> > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. What part
> > of this do you dispute?
>
> I dispute all of it.
So, you dispute that "the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g". You just need to go back to grade school and learn about a subject called algebra. You will learn that the quoted statement is correct.
> > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. What part
> > of this do you dispute?
>
> I dispute all of it.
> Two observers closing in on each other will not agree on the speed at which they
> are closing.
> I posit my many calculations using the Lorentz Transforms, as my proof.
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 3:43:43 PM5/24/22
to
You want this forum to believe your long paragraphs. But how can you ask this forum to believe a lengthy Stan Fultoni paragraph when we can't even bring ourselves to believe your name?
Stan Fultoni, are you now, or have you ever been Townes Olson????
Stan Fultoni
May 24, 2022, 6:47:17 PM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:43:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> You keep repeating the same sentences...
It's really just one sentence: The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
You've said you dispute every part of this, which means you dipute the fact that the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g. But this is just grade school algebra, which any mentally competent adult can verify for themselves. Therefore, your beliefs are wrong, right?
> you have been shown can be used in new ways to undo the consistency of relativity.
To the contrary, your silly pronouncements have been thoroughly debunked. All you are doing (unwittingly) is defining a coordinate systems by the transformation x'=(x-vt)g^2, t'=(t-vx), for which objects at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, but objects at rest in S have velocity -vg^2 in terms of S'. Duh. The problem with this is that if S is a standard inertial coordinate system then S' is not, i.e., the equations of physics do not take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of S'.
And now you're reduced to denying simple grade school algebra.
> You want this forum to believe your long paragraphs.
It's a single sentence. See above. Any mentally competent adult can read and understand it.
> You keep repeating the same sentences...
It's really just one sentence: The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
You've said you dispute every part of this, which means you dipute the fact that the transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g. But this is just grade school algebra, which any mentally competent adult can verify for themselves. Therefore, your beliefs are wrong, right?
> you have been shown can be used in new ways to undo the consistency of relativity.
And now you're reduced to denying simple grade school algebra.
> You want this forum to believe your long paragraphs.
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 8:22:37 PM5/24/22
to
Stan Fultoni
May 24, 2022, 8:54:16 PM5/24/22
to
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:22:37 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> > x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of
> > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
> >
> > Your silly pronouncements have been thoroughly debunked. All you are doing (unwittingly)
> > The transformation x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2) has the unique inverse
> > x=(x'+vt')g, t=(t'+vx')g, which by simple grade school algebra entails the reciprocity of
> > velocity, the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation.
> >
> > is defining a coordinate systems by the transformation x'=(x-vt)g^2, t'=(t-vx), for which objects
> > at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, but objects at rest in S have velocity -vg^2 in terms
> > of S'. The problem with this is that if S is a standard inertial coordinate system then S' is not,
> > at rest in S' have velocity v in terms of S, but objects at rest in S have velocity -vg^2 in terms
> > i.e., the equations of physics do not take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in
> > terms of S'.
>
> You should stop typing until you understand what actually under discussion, which you don't.
> > terms of S'.
>
To the contrary, I've succinctly debunked your silly claim. Remember, you said one object was approaching another at the speed v = .867, and that taking length contraction and time dilation (but not relativity of simultaneity) into account he was approaching at speed 4v = 3.468. That is vg^2, as I just explained. Your inability to even recognize this is the real root of the problem here. Before you can even begin trying to understand the physics, you need to stop denying grade school algebra... but you refuse, because you apparently don't really want to understand.
patdolan
May 24, 2022, 9:12:26 PM5/24/22
to
0 new messages