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 patdolan
Post by patdolan
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
Iâ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 youâre measuring
a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You havenât
said anything like that yet.
Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
especially youâ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 â 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, thatâs not at all clear. Again, you havenât specified what v means,
other than itâ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?
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 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
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
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
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, youâre about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Patâs v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkinâ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, letâ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
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, youâre about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Patâs v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkinâ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, letâ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