Re: A friendly request to Ken Seto from Uncle Ben

All the evidence we see is on the other side. Alen, you regularly
demonstrate lack of understanding of Minkowski spacetime, and when asked
for a single case where you used its mathematics to compute something,
all you had were excuses. Constantly bleating that you do understand it
accomplishes nothing.

There is no credit for work not done.

On Nov 27, 3:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:

It is your mistake to think I don't understand.
I understand Minkowski spacetime perfectly well,
but I dispute that it describes the physical reality.
It is a matter of disputation rather than a failure
to understand, but you lot don't seem to be able
to credit that anyone who understands Minkowski
spactime could possibly be less than enthralled
by it, never mind actually doubt it.

Alen

Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message
 6d8d9f7b-daac-4030-b61e-185bcaa55006@d23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com

I decided not to respond anymore.
He didn't respond to my last request and I don't have the
time to ram it up his ... thing. He won't understand anyway.
He will die stupid.

Dirk Vdm

If you wont be serious, why should I bother responding?

The dog story relates to your idea that different things belong in
different frames.  Frames are just a way to put coordinates onto
events.  Frames don't own things.

Uncle Ben

If there is only one dog, there is no problem.
What you don't realise, however, is that there
were really two dogs, and you wife actually took
a picture of the second dog, while you think she
took a different picture of the same dog. So there
is really not such a simple concept to grasp
after all.

Alen

On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

snip

If there is a dog in my yard, and if both my wife and I take pictures
of the dog, my pictures
are shown from one angle and hers from another.

But it's still the same dog.  When are you going to grasp this simple
concept?

Uncle Ben

What do you find paradoxical about the Andromeda phenomenon?

Such superiority! Why don't you include your
orthodox selves in your fascination? Consider the
way you have to wriggle about in order to paper
over the impossibility of giving a really convincing
answer to the Andromeda paradox, for example!

It is far better to be in a 'freak show' than to be
trapped in a peer reviewed environment in which
one has to be terrified to ever suggest anything
that might be considered questionable.

Ken considers any idea like frame rotations as
'bogus' and so considers any implication that the
lightning strikes are not either absolutely simultaneous
or absolutely non-simultaneous as 'bogus'. There
is nothing 'freaky' about such a position. It means
he has to avoid transferring the nonsimultaneity visible
in the track frame to the train frame, as you do,
which implies a difference between the light in the
track frame and the light in the train frame, which
you do not allow.

Alen

On Nov 25, 3:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm treating sci.physics.relativity like a freak show.  It is
fascinating how the mind of man can go wrong.

Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message
 122c1e10-6d5a-45ba-9a43-a3731ad39d0a@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com

You should have known in front where this would bring you.
Ask him what the variables represent in the transformation.
The imbecile doesn't even know what an event is :-)

Dirk Vdm

Dear Ken,

For weeks now you have been telling me, as we discuss elementary
problems in Specialk Relativiy, that I have been executing the Lorentz
Transformation incorrectly.

Maybe you are right, Ken.  Educate me a little.  Tell me, what is the
Lorentz Transformation?  In particular,

1. What is it for?  It is a tool, I know, but what is it used for?

2. Show me a very simple example of how it is used for any problem you
like.

If it turns out that I have bveen misusing the Lorentz Transformation
for all the years I have taught relativity, I will be very forever
grateful to you for correcting me.

Uncle Ben