Discussion:
The Bodkin Equalities
patdolan
2022-01-08 18:02:48 UTC
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.

1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.

2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.

3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.

Amen, Bodkin?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 18:15:15 UTC
Post by patdolan
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
measured in this frame will not be v.

But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
Post by patdolan
2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that
Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In
other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
Yes.
Post by patdolan
3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in
the Lorentz transforms.
Well, if we want to transform from the coordinates in which Pat is at rest
to the coordinates where Bodkin is at rest, that’s appropriate.
Post by patdolan
Amen, Bodkin?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2022-01-08 18:33:52 UTC
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
Ah, the "Ken Seto syndrom" again. "Closing velocity between
a and b" is meaningless because it is underspecified.
patdolan
2022-01-08 18:40:45 UTC
Post by Python
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
Ah, the "Ken Seto syndrom" again. "Closing velocity between
a and b" is meaningless because it is underspecified.
Okay Python, I'll bite. How about YOU bringing the closing velocity up to spec.
patdolan
2022-01-08 19:33:52 UTC
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
Doesn't this contradict your initial assumption that there is only two "objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python. They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested in your objections Bodkin. What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 20:01:24 UTC
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2022-01-08 21:05:21 UTC
... the closing speed [...] of an object?
Seto's symptom again. The syntagm is meaningless.
patdolan
2022-01-08 21:52:55 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some "carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...

We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.

Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v, and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all, v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t. And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v and a coordinate form, v'.

Bodkin?

(one more setup step to go)
Buddy Good
2022-01-08 21:59:48 UTC
Post by patdolan
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just
like the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing
velocity v, and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there
be. After all, v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t. And x &
t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it is
natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v and
a coordinate form, v'.
idiot, closing velocity doesn't exists. You are one observer, not two.
rotchm is an imbecile.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 22:15:45 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.

Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-08 22:26:38 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?

I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
patdolan
2022-01-08 23:20:44 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.

Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it must be thus for the LTs to work.

Comprenez vous?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-09 20:24:17 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.

If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 01:17:05 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me in our private universe. Sound good?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 05:17:20 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me in our private universe. Sound good?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
The Starmaker
2022-01-10 05:49:40 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me in our private universe. Sound good?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
if a particle moves with the velocity c in one reference frame, then
it also moves with the same velocity c in any other reference
frame.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
patdolan
2022-01-10 06:14:50 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me in our private universe. Sound good?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
if a particle moves with the velocity c in one reference frame, then
it also moves with the same velocity c in any other reference
frame.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
Yes Starmaker, Einstein's bold second postulate. Expressed mathematically in the tripartite equality

∆x/∆t = ∆x'/∆t' = c

It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 14:55:20 UTC
Post by patdolan
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.

Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?

Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 17:31:50 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest. But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God question. Any post-modern understands that.

Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 17:57:53 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest. But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Post by patdolan
Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 18:02:51 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest. But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Oh you foolish, foolish Bodkin. I admitted no such thing. I said POST-moderns understand science and religion's positions in the cosmos (as did the pre-moderns). The vast majority of souls alive today are MODERNS and not POST-moderns. Moderns have no notions that we are at the close of the scientific age. Moderns are oblivious to the fact that we are at the dawn of the post-scientific era.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 18:23:03 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest. But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Oh you foolish, foolish Bodkin. I admitted no such thing. I said
POST-moderns understand science and religion's positions in the cosmos
(as did the pre-moderns). The vast majority of souls alive today are
MODERNS and not POST-moderns. Moderns have no notions that we are at the
close of the scientific age. Moderns are oblivious to the fact that we
are at the dawn of the post-scientific era.
One does not displace the other, as you said. Nor does one flourish when
the other dies.

And I think it’s cute that you think the age of science is nearly over.
Looking forward to the Handmaid’s Tale days, eh?
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 18:31:11 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest. But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Oh you foolish, foolish Bodkin. I admitted no such thing. I said
POST-moderns understand science and religion's positions in the cosmos
(as did the pre-moderns). The vast majority of souls alive today are
MODERNS and not POST-moderns. Moderns have no notions that we are at the
close of the scientific age. Moderns are oblivious to the fact that we
are at the dawn of the post-scientific era.
One does not displace the other, as you said. Nor does one flourish when
the other dies.
And I think it’s cute that you think the age of science is nearly over.
Looking forward to the Handmaid’s Tale days, eh?
No. Looking forward to the time when Science is removed from the top peg on the tool board and taking its rightful place with all the other tools. I'm sure that the inventor of the scientific method, Father Roger Bacon, is smiling approvingly.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 19:12:12 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest.
But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Oh you foolish, foolish Bodkin. I admitted no such thing. I said
POST-moderns understand science and religion's positions in the cosmos
(as did the pre-moderns). The vast majority of souls alive today are
MODERNS and not POST-moderns. Moderns have no notions that we are at the
close of the scientific age. Moderns are oblivious to the fact that we
are at the dawn of the post-scientific era.
One does not displace the other, as you said. Nor does one flourish when
the other dies.
And I think it’s cute that you think the age of science is nearly over.
Looking forward to the Handmaid’s Tale days, eh?
No. Looking forward to the time when Science is removed from the top peg
on the tool board and taking its rightful place with all the other tools.
I'm sure that the inventor of the scientific method, Father Roger Bacon,
is smiling approvingly.
As far as I know, the perception that science occupies the “top peg on the
tool board” is a misplaced one. There are certain kinds of investigations
that science is particularly well suited for. There are others for which
science is both poorly suited and generally mute. Science is generally mute
on ethics or questions of law, for example. Mathematics is another domain
that will continue regardless of science and nobody is saying that science
is top dog in this arena.

I’m fairly certain that all this hoo-hah about science being the golden boy
of the age is just an artifact of popular attention (e.g. trade books,
biographies, gee-whiz magazines), which has risen with technological
advances (as opposed to science) and a rather busily militaristic century.
It’s not really true among the people actually involved in the field. A
good example of this is that a lot of the revolutionary work in physics
took place in the first half of the 20th century, while instead there was a
huge burst of investment in science at a national level in the 2nd half of
the 20th century, which was fueled by things like WWII, nuclear arms race,
the computing and semiconductor industries, the space race, and so on.

Keep also in mind that the chief areas of science and technology in the
next two or three decades that will be important are 1) fusion energy
generation, 2) other efficient green energy generation and storage (read
“batteries”), 3) genetic manipulation (see CRISPR), particularly for
therapeutics, and 4) robotics and autonomous controls. There will be at
least two orders of magnitude more investment in these areas than there
will be in physics.
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 19:23:38 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest.
But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Oh you foolish, foolish Bodkin. I admitted no such thing. I said
POST-moderns understand science and religion's positions in the cosmos
(as did the pre-moderns). The vast majority of souls alive today are
MODERNS and not POST-moderns. Moderns have no notions that we are at the
close of the scientific age. Moderns are oblivious to the fact that we
are at the dawn of the post-scientific era.
One does not displace the other, as you said. Nor does one flourish when
the other dies.
And I think it’s cute that you think the age of science is nearly over.
Looking forward to the Handmaid’s Tale days, eh?
No. Looking forward to the time when Science is removed from the top peg
on the tool board and taking its rightful place with all the other tools.
I'm sure that the inventor of the scientific method, Father Roger Bacon,
is smiling approvingly.
As far as I know, the perception that science occupies the “top peg on the
tool board” is a misplaced one. There are certain kinds of investigations
that science is particularly well suited for. There are others for which
science is both poorly suited and generally mute. Science is generally mute
on ethics or questions of law, for example. Mathematics is another domain
that will continue regardless of science and nobody is saying that science
is top dog in this arena.
Modern mathematics has also been severely devalued in the post-modern era. See Professor Norman Wildberger's excellent collection of over 600 videos on problems with rigor in modern analysis, real numbers, etc.
Post by Odd Bodkin
I’m fairly certain that all this hoo-hah about science being the golden boy
of the age is just an artifact of popular attention (e.g. trade books,
biographies, gee-whiz magazines), which has risen with technological
advances (as opposed to science) and a rather busily militaristic century.
It’s not really true among the people actually involved in the field. A
good example of this is that a lot of the revolutionary work in physics
took place in the first half of the 20th century, while instead there was a
huge burst of investment in science at a national level in the 2nd half of
the 20th century, which was fueled by things like WWII, nuclear arms race,
the computing and semiconductor industries, the space race, and so on.
Keep also in mind that the chief areas of science and technology in the
next two or three decades that will be important are 1) fusion energy
generation, 2) other efficient green energy generation and storage (read
“batteries”), 3) genetic manipulation (see CRISPR), particularly for
therapeutics, and 4) robotics and autonomous controls. There will be at
least two orders of magnitude more investment in these areas than there
will be in physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 19:48:19 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
It is one of three fundamental postulates of our modern age. The other
two being the de Broglie wave particle duality postulate and the
Darwinian postulate claiming descent with modification by means of
natural selection acting on random mutation. This tawdry trinity has
more or less replaced the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in our time.
Oh dear. So we uncover the general despising of unGodly science. I see.
Did you know that Francis Collins, recent director of NIH and Nobel
Prize-winning biologist, is a devout Catholic?
So am I. But I come down with the Evangelicals and the Discovery
Institute on Collins. He's not the equivalent of a pedophilic priest.
But he's up there.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Were you under the impression that there was a hard choice between science
and faith required? Who on earth gave you that misinformation?
You presume too much about me, Bodkin. Science is independent of the God
question. Any post-modern understands that.
Exactly. And so your earlier statement that these “three fundamental
postulates of our modern age” have “more or less replaced” the objects of
faith is just hogwash, as you just admitted.
Oh you foolish, foolish Bodkin. I admitted no such thing. I said
POST-moderns understand science and religion's positions in the cosmos
(as did the pre-moderns). The vast majority of souls alive today are
MODERNS and not POST-moderns. Moderns have no notions that we are at the
close of the scientific age. Moderns are oblivious to the fact that we
are at the dawn of the post-scientific era.
One does not displace the other, as you said. Nor does one flourish when
the other dies.
And I think it’s cute that you think the age of science is nearly over.
Looking forward to the Handmaid’s Tale days, eh?
No. Looking forward to the time when Science is removed from the top peg
on the tool board and taking its rightful place with all the other tools.
I'm sure that the inventor of the scientific method, Father Roger Bacon,
is smiling approvingly.
As far as I know, the perception that science occupies the “top peg on the
tool board” is a misplaced one. There are certain kinds of investigations
that science is particularly well suited for. There are others for which
science is both poorly suited and generally mute. Science is generally mute
on ethics or questions of law, for example. Mathematics is another domain
that will continue regardless of science and nobody is saying that science
is top dog in this arena.
Modern mathematics has also been severely devalued in the post-modern
era. See Professor Norman Wildberger's excellent collection of over 600
videos on problems with rigor in modern analysis, real numbers, etc.
This is an area I know something about, having worked in this arena.
The number of academic positions for mathematicians is, and has always
been, pathetically small. As a result, most graduating mathematicians find
work applying their skills in either ancillary research programs or in the
commercial sector. The number of mathematics graduates, unfortunately, has
grown in the last 50 years or so, mostly because they actually aspired to
something else (like physics or software engineering) and ended up in
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
I’m fairly certain that all this hoo-hah about science being the golden boy
of the age is just an artifact of popular attention (e.g. trade books,
biographies, gee-whiz magazines), which has risen with technological
advances (as opposed to science) and a rather busily militaristic century.
It’s not really true among the people actually involved in the field. A
good example of this is that a lot of the revolutionary work in physics
took place in the first half of the 20th century, while instead there was a
huge burst of investment in science at a national level in the 2nd half of
the 20th century, which was fueled by things like WWII, nuclear arms race,
the computing and semiconductor industries, the space race, and so on.
Keep also in mind that the chief areas of science and technology in the
next two or three decades that will be important are 1) fusion energy
generation, 2) other efficient green energy generation and storage (read
“batteries”), 3) genetic manipulation (see CRISPR), particularly for
therapeutics, and 4) robotics and autonomous controls. There will be at
least two orders of magnitude more investment in these areas than there
will be in physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Dirk is anxious that we move forward on the original project.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 12:01:28 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Dirk Van de moortel
2022-01-10 17:03:49 UTC
[snip]
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Promised but will not. Ever.

Dirk Vdm
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 17:09:09 UTC
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
[snip]
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Promised but will not. Ever.
Dirk Vdm
One can almost hear the “crapcrapcrapcrap” muttering in the background.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 18:50:19 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--

Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.

Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2022-01-10 18:56:27 UTC
...
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin.
Definitely Pat. Put up or shut up!
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 19:16:59 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.

Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.

But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 19:26:16 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 19:35:14 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
patdolan
2022-01-10 19:36:51 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 19:48:20 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
I already told you this is not a tenable premise yet. You have not defined
what you mean by the coordinate velocity of B or P in terms of any
coordinates of any chosen events. You have not defined what you mean by
proper velocity of B or P. You have not shown that these are identical, nor
have you identified which (if either) corresponds to the v in the Lorentz
transform.

So don’t take as a premise anything you haven’t shown or even explained.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 20:07:32 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
I already told you this is not a tenable premise yet. You have not defined
what you mean by the coordinate velocity of B or P in terms of any
coordinates of any chosen events. You have not defined what you mean by
proper velocity of B or P. You have not shown that these are identical, nor
have you identified which (if either) corresponds to the v in the Lorentz
transform.
But I have Bodkin. Your memory is failing you. You agreed to the proper closing velocities and coordinate closing velocities for any two FoRs. Please refresh your memory whilst I continue with the derivation of the Bodkin Equalities.
Post by Odd Bodkin
So don’t take as a premise anything you haven’t shown or even explained.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 20:19:15 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
I already told you this is not a tenable premise yet. You have not defined
what you mean by the coordinate velocity of B or P in terms of any
coordinates of any chosen events. You have not defined what you mean by
proper velocity of B or P. You have not shown that these are identical, nor
have you identified which (if either) corresponds to the v in the Lorentz
transform.
But I have Bodkin. Your memory is failing you. You agreed to the proper
closing velocities and coordinate closing velocities for any two FoRs.
Please refresh your memory whilst I continue with the derivation of the Bodkin Equalities.
No, I did not. Please look through the chain and you’ll see I asked this
same set of questions before.

Do not try to pretend that I did not ask them, or that I assented to the
premise.
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
So don’t take as a premise anything you haven’t shown or even explained.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 20:10:23 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.

Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.

Back to the proof...

v' = x'/t'

Now according to Sal

x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)

x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)

we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t' which is also our premise.

x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0

This then is the first Bodkin Equality

x'/t' = 0

Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is after all the only premise we are premising.

On to the second Bodkin Equality...
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 20:22:41 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).

Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.

Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.

At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
variables even mean.
Post by patdolan
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is
after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 20:42:30 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
variables even mean.
Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object. But there is no "u" in our universe. Remember? Unless you count the empty whiskey bottle. We are not dealing or trying to calculate a proper velocity of a third object from our respect FoRs. We are calculating the completely Dolatorian concept and quantity of coordinate and proper CLOSING VELOCITY between our FoRs.

Not think a little while longer.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is
after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 20:51:26 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
variables even mean.
Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was
doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object.
No, he was not. He never used those words “coordinate velocity” and “proper
velocity”. You are dreaming things. Furthermore, YOU are not using the
terms correctly, mostly because you don’t know what they mean.
Post by patdolan
But there is no "u" in our universe.
Right. All the more reason to define what it is you’re trying to transform.
Sal at least defined it. You didn’t at all. And so you floundered around.
Post by patdolan
Remember? Unless you count the empty whiskey bottle. We are not dealing
or trying to calculate a proper velocity of a third object from our
respect FoRs. We are calculating the completely Dolatorian concept and
quantity of coordinate and proper CLOSING VELOCITY between our FoRs.
Not think a little while longer.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is
after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 21:00:43 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
variables even mean.
Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was
doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object.
No, he was not. He never used those words “coordinate velocity” and “proper
velocity”. You are dreaming things. Furthermore, YOU are not using the
terms correctly, mostly because you don’t know what they mean.
Sure I am using the terms precisely and correctly. Don't believe me? Then YOU use them correctly and demonstrate the proper use of v in the LTs. If you can't or won't, then I stand victorious.

I put it to a vote of this forum! Who has acquitted hizself the greater relativists on this day?
Post by Odd Bodkin
But there is no "u" in our universe.
Right. All the more reason to define what it is you’re trying to transform.
Sal at least defined it. You didn’t at all. And so you floundered around.
Remember? Unless you count the empty whiskey bottle. We are not dealing
or trying to calculate a proper velocity of a third object from our
respect FoRs. We are calculating the completely Dolatorian concept and
quantity of coordinate and proper CLOSING VELOCITY between our FoRs.
Not think a little while longer.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is
after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 21:43:01 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P,
right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
variables even mean.
Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was
doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object.
No, he was not. He never used those words “coordinate velocity” and “proper
velocity”. You are dreaming things. Furthermore, YOU are not using the
terms correctly, mostly because you don’t know what they mean.
Sure I am using the terms precisely and correctly. Don't believe me?
Then YOU use them correctly and demonstrate the proper use of v in the
LTs. If you can't or won't, then I stand victorious.
Oh, come on you lazy buffoon. You can’t look up “proper velocity” in Google
or even Wikipedia?

Proper velocity (or celerity) is dx/dtau, where dx is the change in
position of an object as seen by an observer NOT moving with the object,
and dtau is the change in time on a clock that IS moving with the object.

Note that proper velocity was NEVER discussed in Sal’s little video, and in
fact the job remains for you to look up what “coordinate velocity” means.

You aren’t going to accomplish anything if you don’t even know what the
words mean. You’re just going to fling them around like chopped vegetables
Post by patdolan
I put it to a vote of this forum! Who has acquitted hizself the greater
relativists on this day?
Post by Odd Bodkin
But there is no "u" in our universe.
Right. All the more reason to define what it is you’re trying to transform.
Sal at least defined it. You didn’t at all. And so you floundered around.
Remember? Unless you count the empty whiskey bottle. We are not dealing
or trying to calculate a proper velocity of a third object from our
respect FoRs. We are calculating the completely Dolatorian concept and
quantity of coordinate and proper CLOSING VELOCITY between our FoRs.
Not think a little while longer.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is
after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-11 02:26:45 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P,
right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
variables even mean.
Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was
doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object.
No, he was not. He never used those words “coordinate velocity” and “proper
velocity”. You are dreaming things. Furthermore, YOU are not using the
terms correctly, mostly because you don’t know what they mean.
Sure I am using the terms precisely and correctly. Don't believe me?
Then YOU use them correctly and demonstrate the proper use of v in the
LTs. If you can't or won't, then I stand victorious.
Oh, come on you lazy buffoon. You can’t look up “proper velocity” in Google
or even Wikipedia?
Proper velocity (or celerity) is dx/dtau, where dx is the change in
position of an object as seen by an observer NOT moving with the object,
and dtau is the change in time on a clock that IS moving with the object.
Note that proper velocity was NEVER discussed in Sal’s little video, and in
fact the job remains for you to look up what “coordinate velocity” means.
You aren’t going to accomplish anything if you don’t even know what the
words mean. You’re just going to fling them around like chopped vegetables
Bodkin, what makes you think that I am not completely conversant in celerity, aka proper velocity w.

What we have been investigating in this thread is the CLOSING proper velocity and the CLOSING coordinate velocity, which as I stated earlier is a completely new Dolotarian quantity, and only applicable to the LTs. Proper velocity, w, has nothing whatsoever to do with the LTs. Please read my posts closer.

Now stop the squirming and start over. Look around, do you see Dirk or Python squirming in such a disgusting a cowardly fashion?
Post by Odd Bodkin
I put it to a vote of this forum! Who has acquitted hizself the greater
relativists on this day?
Post by Odd Bodkin
But there is no "u" in our universe.
Right. All the more reason to define what it is you’re trying to transform.
Sal at least defined it. You didn’t at all. And so you floundered around.
Remember? Unless you count the empty whiskey bottle. We are not dealing
or trying to calculate a proper velocity of a third object from our
respect FoRs. We are calculating the completely Dolatorian concept and
quantity of coordinate and proper CLOSING VELOCITY between our FoRs.
Not think a little while longer.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is
after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-11 13:26:32 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P,
right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and
Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am
interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing
speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or
are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we
shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate
time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper
closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re
measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
variables even mean.
Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was
doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object.
No, he was not. He never used those words “coordinate velocity” and “proper
velocity”. You are dreaming things. Furthermore, YOU are not using the
terms correctly, mostly because you don’t know what they mean.
Sure I am using the terms precisely and correctly. Don't believe me?
Then YOU use them correctly and demonstrate the proper use of v in the
LTs. If you can't or won't, then I stand victorious.
Oh, come on you lazy buffoon. You can’t look up “proper velocity” in Google
or even Wikipedia?
Proper velocity (or celerity) is dx/dtau, where dx is the change in
position of an object as seen by an observer NOT moving with the object,
and dtau is the change in time on a clock that IS moving with the object.
Note that proper velocity was NEVER discussed in Sal’s little video, and in
fact the job remains for you to look up what “coordinate velocity” means.
You aren’t going to accomplish anything if you don’t even know what the
words mean. You’re just going to fling them around like chopped vegetables
Bodkin, what makes you think that I am not completely conversant in
celerity, aka proper velocity w.
What we have been investigating in this thread is the CLOSING proper
velocity and the CLOSING coordinate velocity, which as I stated earlier
is a completely new Dolotarian quantity,
Ah, OK, so ones you’ve made up but not defined in any way. And you just
demonstrated that you can’t show anything useful with them in the Lorentz
transforms. So the whole thing has been a boondoggle with no outcome.

Very good, not surprised. Perfectly in tune with your MO.
Post by patdolan
and only applicable to the LTs. Proper velocity, w, has nothing
Now stop the squirming and start over. Look around, do you see Dirk or
Python squirming in such a disgusting a cowardly fashion?
Post by Odd Bodkin
I put it to a vote of this forum! Who has acquitted hizself the greater
relativists on this day?
Post by Odd Bodkin
But there is no "u" in our universe.
Right. All the more reason to define what it is you’re trying to transform.
Sal at least defined it. You didn’t at all. And so you floundered around.
Remember? Unless you count the empty whiskey bottle. We are not dealing
or trying to calculate a proper velocity of a third object from our
respect FoRs. We are calculating the completely Dolatorian concept and
quantity of coordinate and proper CLOSING VELOCITY between our FoRs.
Not think a little while longer.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = x'/t', which is
after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-10 20:29:51 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t' which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which is after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
v = -x'/t' (premised)

x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)

x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)

x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)

x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'

xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x

x'^2 = c^2t'2

x'/t' = c

Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v

Here then are the Bodkin Equalities for the World's perusal:

1) x'/t' = 0

and

2) x'/t' = c

The premise that the coordinate and proper closing velocities for any two FoRs are always equivalent, is thus disproved using the logical method of reductio ad absurdum. This casts shade, if not total darkness, on the validity and usefulness of the LTs.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 20:51:26 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which
is after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
v = -x'/t' (premised)
x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
x'^2 = c^2t'2
x'/t' = c
Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
1) x'/t' = 0
and
2) x'/t' = c
The premise that the coordinate and proper closing velocities for any two
FoRs are always equivalent, is thus disproved using the logical method of
reductio ad absurdum. This casts shade, if not total darkness, on the
validity and usefulness of the LTs.
LOL.

All you’ve proven in this rather sad boondoggle, Pat, is that you don’t
know what you’re doing, you don’t know what the words mean, and you’re not
even sure what it is you were trying to show.

You’re like the guy who buys a car at a dealer and then stalks back into
the salesman, complaining that the car is a junker and won’t even start.
The salesman asks him, “Did it turn over at all when you turned the
ignition key?” The guy says, “Key?”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Dirk Van de moortel
2022-01-10 21:05:48 UTC
[snip]
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
v = -x'/t' (premised)
x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
x'^2 = c^2t'2
x'/t' = c
Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
1) x'/t' = 0
and
2) x'/t' = c
The premise that the coordinate and proper closing velocities for any two
FoRs are always equivalent, is thus disproved using the logical method of
reductio ad absurdum. This casts shade, if not total darkness, on the
validity and usefulness of the LTs.
LOL.
All you’ve proven in this rather sad boondoggle, Pat, is that you don’t
know what you’re doing, you don’t know what the words mean, and you’re not
even sure what it is you were trying to show.
You’re like the guy who buys a car at a dealer and then stalks back into
the salesman, complaining that the car is a junker and won’t even start.
The salesman asks him, “Did it turn over at all when you turned the
ignition key?” The guy says, “Key?”
Sometimes I'm just tempted to restart populating that fumbles list.
But only just slightly, as it would become a full-time job.
So no, I won't bite.

G O O D G R I E F !

Dirk Vdm
patdolan
2022-01-10 21:13:01 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which
is after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
v = -x'/t' (premised)
x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
x'^2 = c^2t'2
x'/t' = c
Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
1) x'/t' = 0
and
2) x'/t' = c
The premise that the coordinate and proper closing velocities for any two
FoRs are always equivalent, is thus disproved using the logical method of
reductio ad absurdum. This casts shade, if not total darkness, on the
validity and usefulness of the LTs.
LOL.
All you’ve proven in this rather sad boondoggle, Pat, is that you don’t
know what you’re doing, you don’t know what the words mean, and you’re not
even sure what it is you were trying to show.
You’re like the guy who buys a car at a dealer and then stalks back into
the salesman, complaining that the car is a junker and won’t even start.
The salesman asks him, “Did it turn over at all when you turned the
ignition key?” The guy says, “Key?”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
How can I be so sure that my arguments are airtight? Because if there were a trace of error Dirk and Bodkin would waste no time to leap and sink their slathering jaws into my equations. But they have not done that. Indeed, Bodkin drones on about "words" as if he were rotchm.

Who else will step up? Python! Weren't you slithering around here earlier in the day?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 22:14:49 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
there is only two
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t'
which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which
is after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
v = -x'/t' (premised)
x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
x'^2 = c^2t'2
x'/t' = c
Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
1) x'/t' = 0
and
2) x'/t' = c
The premise that the coordinate and proper closing velocities for any two
FoRs are always equivalent, is thus disproved using the logical method of
reductio ad absurdum. This casts shade, if not total darkness, on the
validity and usefulness of the LTs.
LOL.
All you’ve proven in this rather sad boondoggle, Pat, is that you don’t
know what you’re doing, you don’t know what the words mean, and you’re not
even sure what it is you were trying to show.
You’re like the guy who buys a car at a dealer and then stalks back into
the salesman, complaining that the car is a junker and won’t even start.
The salesman asks him, “Did it turn over at all when you turned the
ignition key?” The guy says, “Key?”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
How can I be so sure that my arguments are airtight? Because if there
were a trace of error Dirk and Bodkin would waste no time to leap and
sink their slathering jaws into my equations. But they have not done
that. Indeed, Bodkin drones on about "words" as if he were rotchm.
Who else will step up? Python! Weren't you slithering around here earlier in the day?
Don’t be stupid, Pat.

Your equations are meaningless and prove nothing if you don’t know what the
variables mean. And it does no good to label the variables with phrases
when you don’t know what THAT means.

All you’re doing is whining that people don’t fall all over themselves to
educate you on the basics, and so you take that to mean you’ve got it down.
Meanwhile, your stupidities speak for themselves, while you prance up and
down that no one is stomping on you.

The idiot’s strategy for learning something on the internet is to say
something completely stupid that reveals how little he knows, and then to
wait for more knowledgeable people to give the right answer.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-11 07:07:30 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
The idiot’s strategy for learning something on the internet is to say
something completely stupid that reveals how little he knows, and then to
wait for more knowledgeable people to give the right answer.
Oh, so your "meridians are straight lines in Euclidean sense"
was your strategy of learning something? I doubt.
Dirk Van de moortel
2022-01-10 21:00:55 UTC
[snip]
Post by patdolan
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t' which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which is after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
v = -x'/t' (premised)
x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
x'^2 = c^2t'2
x'/t' = c
Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
1) x'/t' = 0
and
2) x'/t' = c
The premise that the coordinate and proper closing velocities for any two FoRs are always equivalent, is thus disproved using the logical method of reductio ad absurdum. This casts shade, if not total darkness, on the validity and usefulness of the LTs.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dirk Vdm
The Starmaker
2022-01-10 22:42:52 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t' which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which is after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
v = -x'/t' (premised)
x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
x'^2 = c^2t'2
x'/t' = c
Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
V=-v

In order for v=v you need to break the light barrier.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
carl eto
2022-01-10 22:47:41 UTC
Also, Maxwell's equations
patdolan
2022-01-11 01:24:24 UTC
Post by The Starmaker
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of
their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
plain v, if you like.
Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
must be thus for the LTs to work.
No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
in our private universe. Sound good?
Yes, see below.
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Comprenez vous?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
promised you’d do.
Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
make.
But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
Back to the proof...
v' = x'/t'
Now according to Sal
x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t' which is also our premise.
x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
This then is the first Bodkin Equality
x'/t' = 0
Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which is after all the only premise we are premising.
On to the second Bodkin Equality...
v = -x'/t' (premised)
x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
x'^2 = c^2t'2
x'/t' = c
Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
V=-v
In order for v=v you need to break the light barrier.
Correction duly noted Starmaker. You will also not that the derivation of the second Bodkin equality did in fact take the minus sign into account.
Post by The Starmaker
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-09 20:24:16 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their
respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
"carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall proceed...
We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially you’re going to have to be careful.
Post by patdolan
And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
and a coordinate form, v'.
Bodkin?
Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
measure it?
Post by patdolan
(one more setup step to go)
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this needle
in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just plain v, if you like.
Well, I think you should describe what YOU mean by v, since you’re the one
isolating it.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 22:15:42 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
nothing else but Bod & pat.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
"objects", two entities?
Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.
Post by patdolan
What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Okay, I will. But give me pardon to dwell on rotchm's point for one post.
How can any observer accurately measure/ascertain the closing speed and
coordinate length of an object?
Indeed good question to iron out first.

How would you measure the length (coordinate length if you want) of a
moving train? How would you measure it’d speed?
Are these two quantities knowable or not? Without them there can be no
knowledge of that object's proper length and proper time rate.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
rotchm
2022-01-08 20:05:04 UTC
Post by patdolan
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can be at most two observers
Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is nothing else but Bod & pat.
No rebuttal? So you agree that you introduced a contradiction in your setup.
Post by patdolan
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
Doesn't this contradict your initial assumption that there is only two "objects", two entities?
No answer? So you agree that you goofed again in your own setup!
Post by patdolan
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can think of,
including the use of the English language.
Nope. You first and there's only two things then you went on to say there are four things. Make up your mind.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 20:01:23 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
measured in this frame will not be v.
But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
be at most two observers
Yes.
and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
Nonsense. But as I said, we will set that aside.
Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames. Bodkin and
Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective
frames. So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
Well, ok but that’s not normally the usage of closing velocity in physics.
Again, we will set it aside. Keep going.
Amen?
Post by Odd Bodkin
2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that
Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In
other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
Yes.
3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in
the Lorentz transforms.
Well, if we want to transform from the coordinates in which Pat is at rest
to the coordinates where Bodkin is at rest, that’s appropriate.
Amen, Bodkin?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
The Starmaker
2022-01-08 20:20:26 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
measured in this frame will not be v.
But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
be at most two observers
Yes.
No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
patdolan
2022-01-08 20:26:21 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
measured in this frame will not be v.
But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
be at most two observers
Yes.
No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.
Starmaker,

Unless you mean God Almighty, this third observer intrigues me. I don't want to fly all the way to Sliver Springs. And he is probably quite drunk--I would be too if I were soaking in alcohol for 70 years. Will you deign to tell who this third observer might be?
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2022-01-08 20:52:18 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
measured in this frame will not be v.
But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
be at most two observers
Yes.
No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.
Starmaker,
Unless you mean God Almighty, this third observer intrigues me. I don't want to fly all the way to Sliver Springs. And he is probably quite drunk--I would be too if I were soaking in alcohol for 70 years. Will you deign to tell who this third observer might be?
It intrigues because you know there is a third observer but you simply forgot who, what, where, when, why...and I don't mean God.

but don't ask me, I'm no Einstein.
Post by patdolan
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
patdolan
2022-01-08 21:08:09 UTC
Post by The Starmaker
Post by patdolan
Post by Odd Bodkin
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
measured in this frame will not be v.
But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
be at most two observers
Yes.
No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.
Starmaker,
Unless you mean God Almighty, this third observer intrigues me. I don't want to fly all the way to Sliver Springs. And he is probably quite drunk--I would be too if I were soaking in alcohol for 70 years. Will you deign to tell who this third observer might be?
It intrigues because you know there is a third observer but you simply forgot who, what, where, when, why...and I don't mean God.
but don't ask me, I'm no Einstein.
Post by patdolan
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
--
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.
Okay. I'll try and puzzle it out. Perhaps the Universe itself is the third observer in some sort of Ernst Machian way. No, that can't be it. I'll try again...

I'm writing a narrative. So my own conscious participates as an observer. Not only mine, but also every reader of this thread. They will see as I see and only what I want them to see in my theater of the mind. They may attempt to project their own thoughts & concepts onto my screen. But my projector outshines all of theirs. These then are the auxiliary and captive observers in mine and Bodkin's Universe. However, it's not a clothing optional universe for them, especially in Dono's case.
Richard Hertz
2022-01-08 21:31:58 UTC
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Actually, my name is Paudkin, Odd Paudkin.
patdolan
2022-01-08 18:17:57 UTC
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.
Amen, Bodkin?
Why are you evading the FACT that you couldn't expose a contradiction
from Lorentz Transformation as you pretended Pat?
Dolan.
Python, I am starting that process right now.

Now finish your coffee and start typing Bodkin, while I have my coffee.

edit: since v is actually a vector (in deference to Gary) Bodkin and Pat agree on ||v||
Python
2022-01-08 18:26:15 UTC
Post by patdolan
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.
Amen, Bodkin?
Why are you evading the FACT that you couldn't expose a contradiction
from Lorentz Transformation as you pretended Pat?
Dolan.
Python, I am starting that process right now.
As you've said for aged. I don't buy it.
Post by patdolan
Now finish your coffee and start typing Bodkin, while I have my coffee.
edit: since v is actually a vector (in deference to Gary) Bodkin and Pat agree on ||v||
In some equations v is a scalar in others it is a vector. If it is a
vector then ||v|| makes sense. "agreeing on ||v||" is a meaningless
statement, you are out of your mind.
patdolan
2022-01-08 18:30:21 UTC
Post by Python
Post by patdolan
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.
Amen, Bodkin?
Why are you evading the FACT that you couldn't expose a contradiction
from Lorentz Transformation as you pretended Pat?
Dolan.
Python, I am starting that process right now.
As you've said for aged. I don't buy it.
Post by patdolan
Now finish your coffee and start typing Bodkin, while I have my coffee.
edit: since v is actually a vector (in deference to Gary) Bodkin and Pat agree on ||v||
In some equations v is a scalar in others it is a vector. If it is a
vector then ||v|| makes sense. "agreeing on ||v||" is a meaningless
statement, you are out of your mind.
Really, Python....I gave you more credit than this. That Bodkin and I should agree on ||v|| simply means that we agree on a number and its sign. Now please sit down and let the adults type a while.
patdolan
2022-01-08 19:52:15 UTC
Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
1) Bodkin, my boy,
"my boy" are unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently.
consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin
Ok
Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term
Unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently. Writing with such salad is that you are limited.
in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other.
But these two objects do not know that one is going towards the other as per posited by you.
How can they know they are approaching each other?
This is a fair ask rotchm. Bodkin and I meet first for a shot of whiskey. Lemesee...a bottle, two shot glasses...so now I guess there are 7 things in the universe. Anyway, while we are having our pre-argument toast we compare our meter sticks and agree to go off a few light years, nothing specific, then charge at the distance light we each see from the other's head lamp...9 things in the universe, unless you require that Bodkin and I be fully clothed too.
patdolan
2022-01-08 20:14:53 UTC
Post by patdolan
"my boy" are unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently.
No comment? So you agree that you are a very bad writer?
Post by patdolan
Post by patdolan
Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term
Unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently. Writing with such salad is that you are limited.
No review do? So you agree that you have a very limited mind?
The fact that you do not know how to write efficiently, that you cannot defend yourself, that you cannot solve simple math problems, all show that you are a crank. That you do not belong here. You do not have what it takes to discuss intelligently.
Post by patdolan
How can they know they are approaching each other?
This is a fair ask rotchm.
...
Post by patdolan
Bodkin and I meet first for a shot of whiskey.
And unnecessary sentence. Learn to write efficiently. When will you ever learn!
Post by patdolan
Lemesee...a bottle, two shot glasses...so now I guess there are 7 things in the universe.
More word salad. So you are diverting cuz you have no sensible defense.
You are a crank and a troll. As such I will start reporting you as spam and start removing your posts.
No rotchm, no! Don't cancel me. I beg you. Learn from me. Ask Dirk and Prokary. I am the great Salishshore on Wiki. I devised the Lorentz contraction velocity equation. I discovered the Kepler 3/Einstein 1 controversy. Do you really want some future cyber archaeologist to uncover that you once cancelled the greatest relativist of his time? Well do you?
Python
2022-01-08 21:06:19 UTC