• Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted"

    From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 1 13:49:19 2023
    This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that
    claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No
    surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and
    its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern
    theoretical physics.

    If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
    show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your
    claim. I will examine it as described below.

    Tom Roberts



    On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
    relativity.
    Then why has nobody been able to do so?
    Many people have already been able to do so.

    Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will
    "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my
    time.

    Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
    examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then
    "refute" their misconceptions.

    What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
    It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
    listened, and your replies are not substantial.

    When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims,
    experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
    but I have chosen to humor you, for now.

    In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
    error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
    inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an
    experiment).

    I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.

    [Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
    that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
    of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 1 12:06:39 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and
    its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.

    If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
    show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.

    Tom Roberts



    On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
    relativity.
    Then why has nobody been able to do so?
    Many people have already been able to do so.

    Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.

    Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
    examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then
    "refute" their misconceptions.

    What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
    It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
    listened, and your replies are not substantial.

    When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
    but I have chosen to humor you, for now.

    In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
    error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
    inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).

    I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.

    [Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
    that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
    of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]

    Tom Roberts
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful
    telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little
    hand. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's
    orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun as the solar system rapidly approaches the observer.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?

    Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 14:42:12 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.

    If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
    show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.

    Tom Roberts



    On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
    relativity.
    Then why has nobody been able to do so?
    Many people have already been able to do so.

    Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.

    Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
    examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then "refute" their misconceptions.

    What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
    It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
    listened, and your replies are not substantial.

    When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
    but I have chosen to humor you, for now.

    In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
    error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
    inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).

    I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.

    [Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
    that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
    of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]

    Tom Roberts
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful
    telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little
    hand. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's
    orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun as the solar system rapidly approaches the observer.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?

    Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.
    Your challenge was answered in a heartbeat, Tom Roberts. Where did you disappear too. Relativity lives by the gedanken and has now DIED by the gedanken. There exist no empirical experiments for which a myriad of other explanations suffice in addition
    to, as Mitch might put it, gamma math.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 14:47:58 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:42:15 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.

    If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.

    Tom Roberts



    On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
    relativity.
    Then why has nobody been able to do so?
    Many people have already been able to do so.

    Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.

    Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
    examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then "refute" their misconceptions.

    What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
    It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't >> listened, and your replies are not substantial.

    When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this, but I have chosen to humor you, for now.

    In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).

    I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.

    [Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
    of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]

    Tom Roberts
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful
    telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little
    hand. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's
    orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun as the solar system rapidly approaches the observer.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?

    Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.
    Your challenge was answered in a heartbeat, Tom Roberts. Where did you disappear too. Relativity lives by the gedanken and has now DIED by the gedanken. There exist no empirical experiments for which a myriad of other explanations suffice in addition
    to, as Mitch might put it, gamma math.
    And how did you come by this crazy, reckless idea to take on all comers against relativity? Like Athel, have you been reading James Tour too?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 16:08:55 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation... In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
    necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...

    Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the
    coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    No, the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, but the intrinsic curvature and the metric of the spacetime manifold are COvariant.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic implies
    1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Sep 1 17:06:55 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:08:57 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation... In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
    necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...

    Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the
    coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    No, the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, but the intrinsic curvature and the metric of the spacetime manifold are COvariant.
    Will the earth spiral into the sun?
    Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic implies
    1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.
    Ludicrous, Lunkhead, Legion, your response is more of an incantation than an explanation. Besides, I just worked out the outside and inside curvature for this gedanken and it turns out that both are invariant. Prove me wrong! It would be a disaster if
    either curvature co-varied with gamma. It they did then curvature would perforce go to zero for photons ( I've just triggered Jan's PTSD (remember Jan?)) because then the sun could not bend starlight during eclipses.

    You're an amateur Legion. Just wait until Tom Roberts shows up. He'll show you a thing or two! Right Tom?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 1 18:43:37 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:06:58 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system...
    In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
    necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...

    Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the
    coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic
    implies 1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.

    The outside and inside curvature for this gedanken both are invariant.

    I've set a new record for efficient debunking... it took only a single post to reduce you to spouting intentional gobbledegook as you flee. LOL. Case closed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Sep 1 18:56:42 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:43:40 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:06:58 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system...
    In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
    necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...

    Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the
    coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic
    implies 1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.

    The outside and inside curvature for this gedanken both are invariant.

    I've set a new record for efficient debunking... it took only a single post to reduce you to spouting intentional gobbledegook as you flee. LOL. Case closed.

    At an event horizon Pound Rebka blue shift would cause infinite EM heat energy for a wave entering a BH.
    Leaving the event horizon the red shifting would go infinite.
    Mathematical energy shows BHs have never existed.
    We observe their red shift look a likes and claim them to be BHs instead.

    Gravity inner drop off can not apply at a BH.
    Feynman's inner drop off to center zero does not
    work at a BH. But gravity cannot be different
    in that way. Einstein never believed in a star
    singularity. He said no to the modern BH...
    He solved his equations first.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 2 18:24:28 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and
    its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.

    If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
    show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.

    Tom Roberts



    On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
    relativity.
    Then why has nobody been able to do so?
    Many people have already been able to do so.

    Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.

    Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
    examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then
    "refute" their misconceptions.

    What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
    It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
    listened, and your replies are not substantial.

    When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
    but I have chosen to humor you, for now.

    In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
    error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
    inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).

    Tom Roberts, I have more than answered your challenge with the BBP and continue to await your pleasure on the physics field of honor. But so far only the lugubrious Legion has butted in and made reply for you; in so doing he has even managed to earn a
    rare Gibberish Award from a disinterested third party, the esteemed Foos Research Institute.

    I suspect you have ruled out option a) in the case of the BBP because you boast below that you would most likely exercise that option within the first few minutes of reading my challenge. It has been, what, three days now? That leaves you your option b)
    "up to the point it actually shows an inconsistency in SR". That the earth must perforce death spiral into the sun merely because it is observed from another (any other) FoR is certainly inconsistent with relativity; not only relativity, but any
    semblance of science, common sense and the laws of gravitation.

    On the other hand, if the earth does not death spiral into the sun under said circumstances then general relativity is proven to be an utter chimera, with only Lunatic Legion's award-wining gibberistic explanation to guide us.

    I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.

    [Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
    that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
    of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Sep 3 11:02:25 2023
    On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to
    the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
    of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the
    distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in
    London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking
    relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big
    Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of
    his own wristwatch's little hand.

    This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the
    observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate
    as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic
    Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the
    effect due to "time dilation".

    [I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
    the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
    not the clock itself.]

    He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5
    revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
    sun.

    This is correct.

    From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
    his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only
    half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
    the sun

    Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in
    the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps
    earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the
    metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from
    those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the
    distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its
    orbit as usual.

    IOW: The earth's path through spacetime is independent of the
    coordinates used to describe it (this should be obvious). GR includes
    this coordinate independence.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?

    It won't. For the simple reason that observations by a distant observer
    cannot possibly affect the behavior of the solar system. This OUGHT to
    be obvious.

    Using GR to model the solar system, one immediately knows that the
    predicted orbit of the earth is independent of coordinates, and the
    distant observer obtains the same trajectory as an earthbound observer.

    [I ignore the difficulties the distant observer will face
    in obtaining accurate measurements.]

    Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant
    spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit
    around the sun.

    Hmmmm. This disclaimer does not accurately describe how this is modeled
    in GR. Your conclusion about the distant observer calculating earth's
    orbit is wrong, and did not properly take into account the coordinate independence of paths in GR.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 3 10:16:33 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:02:33 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

    <snip>

    Using GR to model the solar system, one immediately knows that the
    predicted orbit of the earth is independent of coordinates, and the
    distant observer obtains the same trajectory as an earthbound observer.

    [I ignore the difficulties the distant observer will face in obtaining accurate measurements.]


    Stop spreading bullshit, Roberts.

    GR can't even model the orbit of Mercury, even in the case that's the only planet in the entire universe.

    Your comment " one immediately knows that the predicted orbit of the earth is independent of coordinates°
    is something that only a delusional retarded relativist, astronomer wannabe, would comment while being heavily drunk.

    Even today, with the most advanced models of newtonian astronomy, perfected after two centuries of increasing accurate
    measurements, astronomers can't agree with a single model based on a unique coordinate system. That's why NASA, ESA
    and Roscosmos use different coordinate systems, depending on the space of the Solar System at which they are applied.

    And the navigation information require constant adjustments, in particular for trajectories within the four inner planets.

    GR can't deal with such amount of required information NOT EVEN FOR MERCURY ALONE, less yet to model the entire solar system.

    The center of the Sun follows a complex spiral motion, which IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MODEL ANALYTICALLY. Only with numerical
    calculations using supercomputers can provide, in almost real time, the data required to position every planet and major asteroid.

    GR is unable to be used in these calculations, as the "proper time" of each celestial body affects the "proper time" of the rest, so the
    GR "model" for the solar system is ORDER OF MAGNITUDES much more complex than the current Keplerian/Newtonian models used.
    This makes the problem of numerical calculations IMPOSSIBLE to be implemented in computers.

    And don't come with the crap of PPN, which is a linearization of GR equations, just to help imbecile relativists to figure out 3+5.

    Instead of making such groundless affirmation, I DEFY YOU to show which are the formulae that allow to calculate the position of
    the Sun on Earth's sky AT ANY TIME, ANY LOCAL OBSERVER COORDINATES AND ANY YEAR (1950 - 2050), USING GR.

    The precision has to be EQUAL OR BETTER than in Keplerian/Newtonian model, with resolution better than 1 arcsecond and 1 second.


    Let's see if YOUR BIG MOUTH is backed with your calculations.

    Take the next 12 months, and good luck. The problem is one of the more simple in solar astronomy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 3 10:42:40 2023
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:02:33 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to
    the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
    of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the
    distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big
    Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of
    his own wristwatch's little hand.

    This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate
    as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic
    Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the
    effect due to "time dilation".

    [I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
    the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
    not the clock itself.]

    He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5
    revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
    sun.

    This is correct.

    From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
    his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only
    half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
    the sun

    Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in
    the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its
    orbit as usual.

    A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. All your models
    of Solar System are Euclid based, and thus inconsistent
    with GR shitr.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Sep 3 13:47:26 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:02:33 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
    of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand.

    This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate
    as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the effect due to "time dilation".

    [I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
    the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
    not the clock itself.]

    He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
    sun.

    This is correct.

    From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
    his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
    the sun

    Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in
    the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its
    orbit as usual.
    A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. All your models
    of Solar System are Euclid based, and thus inconsistent
    with GR shitr.
    Well Tom Roberts....these two foreign boys were quite rough on you. But I can detect no error in their criticisms...especially from the Polish gentleman. I am going to show you the deference fellow countrymen should show each other and merely ask you
    to STOP THE HANDWAVING AND SHOW YOUR WORK!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Sep 3 13:51:28 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:02:33 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand.

    This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the effect due to "time dilation".

    [I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
    the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
    not the clock itself.]

    He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
    sun.

    This is correct.

    From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
    his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun

    Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its orbit as usual.
    A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. All your models
    of Solar System are Euclid based, and thus inconsistent
    with GR shitr.
    Well Tom Roberts....these two foreign boys were quite rough on you. But I can detect no error in their criticisms...especially from the Polish gentleman. I am going to show you the deference fellow countrymen should show each other and merely ask you
    to STOP THE HANDWAVING AND SHOW YOUR WORK!!!
    Hear! Hear! (He has no cards to play).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 3 14:46:30 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:02:33 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to
    the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
    of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of
    his own wristwatch's little hand.

    This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate
    as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the effect due to "time dilation".

    [I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
    the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
    not the clock itself.]

    He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun.

    This is correct.

    From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun

    Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps
    earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the
    metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from
    those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its orbit as usual.
    A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. All your models
    of Solar System are Euclid based, and thus inconsistent
    with GR shitr.

    Well Tom Roberts....these two foreign boys were quite rough on you. But I can detect no error in their criticisms...especially from the Polish gentleman. I am going to show you the deference fellow countrymen should show each other and merely ask you
    to STOP THE HANDWAVING AND SHOW YOUR WORK!!!

    Hear! Hear! (He has no cards to play).

    Look who is talking!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)