• Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum.

    From patdolan@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 2 09:12:04 2023
    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 09:58:31 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:12:07 AM 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, and this helical geodesic is not intrinsically altered by being described in terms of a different system of coordinates. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime
    trajectory is invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    Be careful... the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is invariant under Lorentz transformation (which is essentially what you are applying by switching to the background inertial coordinates in which the distant high speed object is at rest,
    superimposed on the mildly curved spacetime surrounding the sun), but the components of the *intrinsic* curvature of spacetime are not invariant under coordinate transformations, they change along with the components of the metric as expressed in terms
    of the different coordinate systems.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    No, if you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe the trajectory of 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. Yes, the ball has different
    coordinates at the end, but the cup also has different coordinates, so the ball still goes into the cup. The idea that changing the coordinate system used to describe the phenomena can somehow change the phenomena is wrong. And no, this does not imply
    that local Lorentz invariance has no physical dynamical effects. The dynamical equations of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which is the physical content of special relativity.

    In other posts you claim the relation (1)^2 = (-1)^2 implies 1 = -1. People may wish to take this into account when framing their replies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 10:07:52 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:58:33 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:12:07 AM 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, and this helical geodesic is not intrinsically altered by being described in terms of a different system of coordinates. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the
    spacetime trajectory is invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    Be careful... the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is invariant under Lorentz transformation (which is essentially what you are applying by switching to the background inertial coordinates in which the distant high speed object is at rest,
    superimposed on the mildly curved spacetime surrounding the sun), but the components of the *intrinsic* curvature of spacetime are not invariant under coordinate transformations, they change along with the components of the metric as expressed in terms
    of the different coordinate systems.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    No, if you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe the trajectory of 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. Yes, the ball has different
    coordinates at the end, but the cup also has different coordinates, so the ball still goes into the cup. The idea that changing the coordinate system used to describe the phenomena can somehow change the phenomena is wrong. And no, this does not imply
    that local Lorentz invariance has no physical dynamical effects. The dynamical equations of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which is the physical content of special relativity.

    In other posts you claim the relation (1)^2 = (-1)^2 implies 1 = -1. People may wish to take this into account when framing their replies.
    Poor Legion. The sci.physics.research moderators have squashed your non-sensical and unsupported reply. Case closed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 10:15:02 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:58:33 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:12:07 AM 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, and this helical geodesic is not intrinsically altered by being described in terms of a different system of coordinates. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the
    spacetime trajectory is invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    Be careful... the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is invariant under Lorentz transformation (which is essentially what you are applying by switching to the background inertial coordinates in which the distant high speed object is at rest,
    superimposed on the mildly curved spacetime surrounding the sun), but the components of the *intrinsic* curvature of spacetime are not invariant under coordinate transformations, they change along with the components of the metric as expressed in terms
    of the different coordinate systems.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    No, if you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe the trajectory of 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. Yes, the ball has different
    coordinates at the end, but the cup also has different coordinates, so the ball still goes into the cup. The idea that changing the coordinate system used to describe the phenomena can somehow change the phenomena is wrong. And no, this does not imply
    that local Lorentz invariance has no physical dynamical effects. The dynamical equations of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which is the physical content of special relativity.
    Ridiculous! See Einstein's First vs. Kepler's Third, ibid.

    In other posts you claim the relation (1)^2 = (-1)^2 implies 1 = -1. People may wish to take this into account when framing their replies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 10:17:00 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:07:55 AM 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, and this helical geodesic is not intrinsically altered by being described in terms of a different system of coordinates. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the
    spacetime trajectory is invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    Be careful... the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is invariant under Lorentz transformation (which is essentially what you are applying by switching to the background inertial coordinates in which the distant high speed object is at rest,
    superimposed on the mildly curved spacetime surrounding the sun), but the components of the *intrinsic* curvature of spacetime are not invariant under coordinate transformations, they change along with the components of the metric as expressed in terms
    of the different coordinate systems.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    No, if you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe the trajectory of 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. Yes, the ball has different
    coordinates at the end, but the cup also has different coordinates, so the ball still goes into the cup. The idea that changing the coordinate system used to describe the phenomena can somehow change the phenomena is wrong. And no, this does not imply
    that local Lorentz invariance has no physical dynamical effects. The dynamical equations of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which is the physical content of special relativity.

    In other posts you claim the relation (1)^2 = (-1)^2 implies 1 = -1. People may wish to take this into account when framing their replies.

    The sci.physics.research moderators have squashed your non-sensical and unsupported reply. Case closed.

    It wasn't posted to sci.physics.research. Should it be?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 2 10:16:42 2023
    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do
    you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????



    You need to be...moderated!


    an dat goin to take som doin


    Will little ben make it?


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Sep 2 10:25:47 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:16:32 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.
    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do
    you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????

    I will be a paragon of virtue in my new forum, Starmaker. No more accusations from me of "canceling cabals" like over on physics.stackexchange



    You need to be...moderated!


    an dat goin to take som doin


    Will little ben make it?
    Big Ben Cartwright, Little Joe, Hoss and Adam. Which one will Legion use next.


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Sep 2 10:28:02 2023
    The Starmaker wrote:

    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do
    you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????

    You need to be...moderated!

    an dat goin to take som doin

    Will little ben make it?


    All moderated forums are like talking through a telephone but the words
    don't come out at the other end.


    You want a forum where it works like a telephone, the words going in on
    one end and comes out
    exactly the same on the other end.

    dey are going to hang up on you.

    you're uncontrollable.


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Sep 2 10:48:55 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:27:51 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????

    You need to be...moderated!

    an dat goin to take som doin

    Will little ben make it?
    All moderated forums are like talking through a telephone but the words don't come out at the other end.


    You want a forum where it works like a telephone, the words going in on
    one end and comes out
    exactly the same on the other end.

    dey are going to hang up on you.
    I will keep these words close to my heart.

    you're uncontrollable.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 10:47:42 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:17:02 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

    It wasn't posted to sci.physics.research. Should it be?

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.research/c/UCZ7YTWY9lY

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Sep 3 10:15:23 2023
    patdolan wrote:

    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:27:51 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????

    You need to be...moderated!

    an dat goin to take som doin

    Will little ben make it?
    All moderated forums are like talking through a telephone but the words don't come out at the other end.


    You want a forum where it works like a telephone, the words going in on
    one end and comes out
    exactly the same on the other end.

    dey are going to hang up on you.
    I will keep these words close to my heart.

    you're uncontrollable.

    Let me explain to you how moderated usenet forums works.

    In usenet moderated forums you have one official moderator and
    a few unofficial moderators in it.

    The unofficial moderators control the offical moderator of the moderated usenet newsgroup.

    No different to walking into a dark alley and having to fight a gang.

    I would say that most of the official moderators are good people.

    It is the unofficial moderators in a moderated newsgroups that are the problematic people.

    The official moderator does whatever the unofficial moderators tell him to do, ...otherwise he
    has no moderated usenet newsgroup.


    Who was moderating Twitter before Musk took over? Thousands of woke moderators including the FBI, CIA, and the Biden Admistration.

    Why do you think they ban Trump on Twitter? (it wasn't the owner of twitter, he was under preasure.)

    So, if you get banned by Sci.physics.research news group, don't shoot the official moderator.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Sep 3 11:01:39 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:15:06 AM 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, and this helical geodesic is not intrinsically altered by being described in terms of a different system of coordinates. Also, the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is
    invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    Be careful... the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is invariant under Lorentz transformation (which is essentially what you are applying to the Schwarzschild coordinates by switching to the background inertial coordinates in which the distant
    high speed object is at rest, superimposed on the mildly curved spacetime surrounding the sun), but the components of the *intrinsic* curvature tensor of spacetime are not invariant under coordinate transformations, they change along with the components
    of the metric tensor as expressed in terms of the different coordinate systems, in such a way that all the invariant intervals are, well, invariant.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    No, describing the phenomena in terms of a different system of coordinates doesn't change the intrinsic phenomena, and doesn't alter any of the invariant intervals. For example, if you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe the
    trajectory of 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. Yes, the ball has different coordinates at the end, but the cup also has different coordinates, so the ball
    still goes into the cup. The idea that changing the coordinate system used to describe the phenomena can somehow change the phenomena is wrong. And no, this does not imply that local Lorentz invariance has no physical dynamical effects. The dynamical
    equations of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which is the physical content of special relativity.

    Ridiculous! See Einstein's First vs. Kepler's Third, ibid.

    I assume by "Einstein's First" you mean the principle of relativity, i.e., that the laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change take the same simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates,
    and I assume that by "Kepler's Third" you mean Kepler's proposition that the squares of the angular orbital periods of the planets are directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axes of their orbits. There is no conflict between either of
    these and the explanation stated above, because the principle of relativity is fully satisfied by local Lorentz invariance (which is a cornerstone of general relativity), and Kepler's proposition is also satisfied in terms of both systems of coordinates (
    because the periods are scaled in the same proportion).

    What may be confusing you is that you may be thinking of Newton's elaboration and refinement of Kepler's propositions based on his concepts of instantaneous gravity and Newtonian concepts of mass and force combined with the assumption that inertial
    coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations. There is indeed a conflict between those Newtonian concepts applied to relativistic velocities versus the relativistic account. But that simply implies that if general relativity (which
    entails local Lorentz invariance) was wrong, then general relativity would be wrong. That is a syntactically correct statement but the premise is counterfactual and hence devoid of significance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sun Sep 3 13:25:23 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:15:16 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    patdolan wrote:

    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:27:51 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do
    you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????

    You need to be...moderated!

    an dat goin to take som doin

    Will little ben make it?
    All moderated forums are like talking through a telephone but the words don't come out at the other end.


    You want a forum where it works like a telephone, the words going in on one end and comes out
    exactly the same on the other end.

    dey are going to hang up on you.
    I will keep these words close to my heart.

    you're uncontrollable.
    Let me explain to you how moderated usenet forums works.

    In usenet moderated forums you have one official moderator and
    a few unofficial moderators in it.

    The unofficial moderators control the offical moderator of the moderated usenet newsgroup.

    No different to walking into a dark alley and having to fight a gang.

    I would say that most of the official moderators are good people.

    It is the unofficial moderators in a moderated newsgroups that are the problematic people.

    The official moderator does whatever the unofficial moderators tell him to do, ...otherwise he
    has no moderated usenet newsgroup.


    Who was moderating Twitter before Musk took over? Thousands of woke moderators including the FBI, CIA, and the Biden Admistration.

    Why do you think they ban Trump on Twitter? (it wasn't the owner of twitter, he was under preasure.)

    So, if you get banned by Sci.physics.research news group, don't shoot the official moderator.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    How did you come by this wisdom, Starmaker? I demand to know.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Sep 4 18:22:10 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:15:16 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    patdolan wrote:

    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:27:51 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do
    you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????

    You need to be...moderated!

    an dat goin to take som doin

    Will little ben make it?
    All moderated forums are like talking through a telephone but the words
    don't come out at the other end.


    You want a forum where it works like a telephone, the words going in on
    one end and comes out
    exactly the same on the other end.

    dey are going to hang up on you.
    I will keep these words close to my heart.

    you're uncontrollable.
    Let me explain to you how moderated usenet forums works.

    In usenet moderated forums you have one official moderator and
    a few unofficial moderators in it.

    The unofficial moderators control the offical moderator of the moderated usenet newsgroup.

    No different to walking into a dark alley and having to fight a gang.

    I would say that most of the official moderators are good people.

    It is the unofficial moderators in a moderated newsgroups that are the problematic people.

    The official moderator does whatever the unofficial moderators tell him to do, ...otherwise he
    has no moderated usenet newsgroup.


    Who was moderating Twitter before Musk took over? Thousands of woke moderators including the FBI, CIA, and the Biden Admistration.

    Why do you think they ban Trump on Twitter? (it wasn't the owner of twitter, he was under preasure.)

    So, if you get banned by Sci.physics.research news group, don't shoot the official moderator.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
    How did you come by this wisdom, Starmaker? I demand to know.
    Below, find my response to Tom Roberts' response to my post on sci.physics.research. I have already had one response swallowed up by the moderator. I post here as an insurance policy.

    Dolan's response to Roberts:

    "I thank this poster for his response and would like to address his main point and also clear up perhaps a bit of sloppy wording on my part.

    First, the sloppy wording. By taking the relativistic doppler into account I mean that of course the distant observer does not actually see through his telescope that Big Ben's little hand is moving at half the radial velocity of the little hand of his
    own wristwatch. What I meant to convey was that the distant observer will infer that Big Ben is ticking off time at a rate only half as fast as his own wristwatch and that this can be known by applying the relativistic doppler equation for the proper
    direction (towards or away) to the the radial velocity that he actually does measure through his telescope.

    Second, this poster refers to a "GR model" of the solar system that will in his opinion clear up the Big Ben Paradox. But he supports it no where in his post with the requisite equations. I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least
    in skeleton fashion via a few symbolic equations, or even pseudo-equations if he prefers. Nobody is more eager than myself to find the solution that will finally put relativity back a firm theoretical footing.

    But a word of caution to this poster: I too have long sot a for a GR solution to the BBP. The fundamental problem with this approach lies in the invariant nature of spacetime curvature. I came very close to solving the problem by the daring assumption
    that spacetime curvature in the vicinity of a gravitating body could be made inversely proportional to the relative velocity of the observer and the gravitating body. But that solution sadly resulted in the gravitating body's inability to bend starlight.
    Which we all know is laughable in view of Eddington."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Sep 4 19:01:22 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:22:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:15:16 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    patdolan wrote:

    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:27:51 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    patdolan wrote:

    The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.

    For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.

    Yeah, Big Ben Paradox makes it onto a moderated forum...but how long do
    you think you'll last onto a moderated forum????

    You need to be...moderated!

    an dat goin to take som doin

    Will little ben make it?
    All moderated forums are like talking through a telephone but the words
    don't come out at the other end.


    You want a forum where it works like a telephone, the words going in on
    one end and comes out
    exactly the same on the other end.

    dey are going to hang up on you.
    I will keep these words close to my heart.

    you're uncontrollable.
    Let me explain to you how moderated usenet forums works.

    In usenet moderated forums you have one official moderator and
    a few unofficial moderators in it.

    The unofficial moderators control the offical moderator of the moderated usenet newsgroup.

    No different to walking into a dark alley and having to fight a gang.

    I would say that most of the official moderators are good people.

    It is the unofficial moderators in a moderated newsgroups that are the problematic people.

    The official moderator does whatever the unofficial moderators tell him to do, ...otherwise he
    has no moderated usenet newsgroup.


    Who was moderating Twitter before Musk took over? Thousands of woke moderators including the FBI, CIA, and the Biden Admistration.

    Why do you think they ban Trump on Twitter? (it wasn't the owner of twitter, he was under preasure.)

    So, if you get banned by Sci.physics.research news group, don't shoot the official moderator.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
    How did you come by this wisdom, Starmaker? I demand to know.
    Below, find my response to Tom Roberts' response to my post on sci.physics.research. I have already had one response swallowed up by the moderator. I post here as an insurance policy.

    Dolan's response to Roberts:

    "I thank this poster for his response and would like to address his main point and also clear up perhaps a bit of sloppy wording on my part.

    First, the sloppy wording. By taking the relativistic doppler into account I mean that of course the distant observer does not actually see through his telescope that Big Ben's little hand is moving at half the radial velocity of the little hand of his
    own wristwatch. What I meant to convey was that the distant observer will infer that Big Ben is ticking off time at a rate only half as fast as his own wristwatch and that this can be known by applying the relativistic doppler equation for the proper
    direction (towards or away) to the the radial velocity that he actually does measure through his telescope.

    Second, this poster refers to a "GR model" of the solar system that will in his opinion clear up the Big Ben Paradox. But he supports it no where in his post with the requisite equations. I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least
    in skeleton fashion via a few symbolic equations, or even pseudo-equations if he prefers. Nobody is more eager than myself to find the solution that will finally put relativity back a firm theoretical footing.

    But a word of caution to this poster: I too have long sot a for a GR solution to the BBP. The fundamental problem with this approach lies in the invariant nature of spacetime curvature. I came very close to solving the problem by the daring assumption
    that spacetime curvature in the vicinity of a gravitating body could be made inversely proportional to the relative velocity of the observer and the gravitating body. But that solution sadly resulted in the gravitating body's inability to bend starlight.
    Which we all know is laughable in view of Eddington."

    Reading over the absolutely unsupported BS that Tom Roberts' wrights in his response, and that Legion routinely writes about GR qua the BBP, I wonder if they will ever realize to what extent they've tortured their beloved theory and simple common
    scientific sense. Did they ever think they would take it this far?

    The crossing over from skeptical curiosity to entrenched ideology can be almost imperceptible. But the crossing back is often times a most jarring epiphany:

    https://youtu.be/tRHVMi3LxZE?si=V1G80txdSuU4uuaE&t=44

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Sep 4 20:01:52 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:01:24 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, and
    this helical geodesic is not intrinsically altered by being described in terms of a
    different system of coordinates. Also, the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is
    invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component
    of the trajectory into account. Misner, et al, illustrate this with a baseball and a bullet.

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    No, the components of the spacetime (intrinsic) curvature tensor aren't invariant,
    they are covariant along with the metric tensor, and of course all invariant intervals
    are preserved under any coordinate transformation.

    The *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory is invariant under Lorentz transformation
    (which is essentially what you're applying to the Schwarzschild coordinates around
    the sun by switching to the background inertial coordinates in which the distant high
    speed object is at rest, superimposed on the mildly curved spacetime surrounding
    the sun), but that's different from the intrinsic curvature of spacetime.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    No, describing phenomena in terms of a different system of coordinates doesn't change the intrinsic phenomena, and doesn't alter any of the invariant intervals.
    For example, if you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe the trajectory of 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. Yes, the ball has
    different coordinates at the end, but the cup also has different coordinates, so
    the ball still goes into the cup.

    And, no, this does not imply that local Lorentz invariance has no physical dynamical
    effects. The dynamical equations of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which is
    the physical content of special relativity.

    Ridiculous! See Einstein's First vs. Kepler's Third, ibid.

    There's no conflict between either the principle of relativity (the equations of physics
    take the same form in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates), or with
    Kepler's third regularity (the squares of the angular orbital periods of the planets are
    directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axes of their orbits). Both of
    those are true in terms of both systems of coordinates.

    You are confusing Kepler's law with the Newtonian propositions such as m = r^3 w^2
    that show how Kelper's laws are (approximately) true as a result of the Newtonian
    laws of mechanics combined with instantaneous gravitational force, which are Galilean
    invariant, not Lorentz invariant.

    Yes, Newton's laws (which you are conflating with Kelper's third regularity) are Galilean
    invariant whereas general relativity is locally (and on large asymptotic scales) Lorentz
    invariant. So, your grand announcement is that, at relativistic speeds, Lorentz invariance
    is significantly inconsistent with Galilean invariance. At this point I would insert a "Duh",
    except that I don't think Duh adequately expresses the towering idiocy of the belief that
    this is somehow a revelation, let alone that it represents an argument against general
    relativity.

    Kepler's coordinates were earth-centered.

    No, they were not. How could the trajectory of the earth be an ellipse (Kepler's first
    law) in terms of earth-centered coordinates?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Sep 4 20:12:03 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:22:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least in
    skeleton fashion via a few symbolic equations...

    That is untrue. I have provided you the general relativistic account (including
    applying the Lorentz transformation to the Schwarzschild coordinates, showing that it still satisfies the field equations, i.e., showing that the contracted Ricci
    curvature tensor still vanishes, of the scenario several times, at varying levels
    of detail (you're welcome), and each time you disregard it with some comment like "too long, didn't read", or "too many equations, please describe in words",
    or "too many words, please describe in equations", and so on.

    I also explained, both qualitatively and quantitatively, how the extrinsic curvature
    of the earth's trajectory through spacetime is invariant, which you have also disgracefully disregarded. Each and every one of you fallacious bits of reasoning
    and misconceptions have been clearly diagnosed and explained, and yuou've run away from all of it.

    Clearly the problem here is not that you've not been provided with the full and
    thorough answer to your questions. The problem is... something else.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Sep 5 11:13:14 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:12:06 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:22:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least in
    skeleton fashion via a few symbolic equations...

    That is untrue. I have provided you the general relativistic account (including
    applying the Lorentz transformation to the Schwarzschild coordinates, showing
    that it still satisfies the field equations, i.e., showing that the contracted Ricci
    curvature tensor still vanishes, of the scenario several times, at varying levels
    of detail (you're welcome), and each time you disregard it with some comment like "too long, didn't read", or "too many equations, please describe in words",
    or "too many words, please describe in equations", and so on.

    I also explained, both qualitatively and quantitatively, how the extrinsic curvature
    of the earth's trajectory through spacetime is invariant, which you have also
    disgracefully disregarded. Each and every one of you fallacious bits of reasoning
    and misconceptions have been clearly diagnosed and explained, and yuou've run
    away from all of it.

    Clearly the problem here is not that you've not been provided with the full and
    thorough answer to your questions. The problem is... something else.
    Would you lookie here! Lunatic Legion has signed on with the moderated sci.rel.research under yet another nom de plume. Why did he add all the =20 stuff?

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.research/c/UCZ7YTWY9lY

    Here's his content, if you can call it that, should you not want to take the trouble to click over to that forum:

    "On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:32:10=E2=80=AFAM UTC-7, Pat Dolan wrote= :
    Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( =F0=9D=9B=BE=3D2 ) rela=
    tive to the solar system...
    In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only h=
    alf the velocity
    necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...

    Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime=
    , and=20
    this helical geodesic is not intrinsically altered by being described in te= rms of a=20
    different system of coordinates (such as the asymptotically flat inertial c= oordinates
    in which the distant observer is at rest). By the way, the *extrinsic* cur= vature of the=20
    earth's trajectory is the same for those two coordinate systems, which may = be=20
    surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory= into=20
    account. (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler illustrates this with a bullet and baseb= all.)

    Invariant spacetime curvature...

    Be careful... as noted above, the *extrinsic* curvature of the trajectory i=
    s invariant=20
    under Lorentz transformation (which is essentially what you're applying by = switching
    to the asymptotically flat background inertial coordinates in which the dis= tant high=20
    speed object is at rest, superimposed on the mildly curved spacetime surrou= nding the=20
    sun), but the components of the *intrinsic* curvature of spacetime are not = invariant
    under coordinate transformations, they change along with the components of = the=20
    metric as expressed in terms of the different coordinate systems. These th= ings
    are all coordinated so that the invariant intervals are, well, invariant.

    Will the earth spiral into the sun?

    No, describing the phenomena in terms of a different coordinate system does= n't change
    the intrinsic phenomena. For example, if you draw two chalk grids on a put= ting green,=20
    and describe the trajectory of a putt going into the hole in terms of one c= oordinate=20
    system, it will also go into the hole when described in terms of the other = coordinate=20
    system. Yes, the ball has different coordinates at the end, but the cup als=
    o has different=20
    coordinates, so the ball still goes into the cup.=20

    The idea that changing the coordinate system used to describe the phenomena= can=20
    somehow change the phenomena is wrong. And no, this does not imply that loc= al=20
    Lorentz invariance has no physical dynamical effects. The dynamical equatio= ns of=20
    physics are locally Lorentz invariant, which is the physical content of spe= cial relativity.

    Ridiculous! See Einstein's First vs. Kepler's Third, ibid.

    I'll assume that by "Einstein's First" you are referring to the principle o=
    f special
    relativity, i.e., that the equations of physics take the same simple homoge= neous=20
    and isotropic form in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinate= s, and=20
    that by "Kepler's Third" you are referring to Kepler's proposition that the= squares of=20
    the orbital periods of the planets are directly proportional to the cubes o=
    f the=20
    semi-major axes of their orbits. =20

    There's no conflict here, and nothing that makes the above explanation=20 "ridiculous". The principle of relativity is contained in local Lorentz in= variance,=20
    which is clearly satisfied in this situation. It also happens that Kepler'= s=20
    proposition remains satisfied (to the same approximation that it ever was),= =20
    since the angular periods of the helical paths of the planets remain in the= =20
    same proportion to each other in terms of the asymptotic inertial coordinat= es
    in which your distant observer is at rest.

    You may be getting confused by trying to apply the Newtonian concepts of=20 instantaneous gravity and Galilean invariance of physical laws, etc., (even though you we not invoking Newtonian concepts), leading to the quantitative= =20
    Newtonian extrapolation of Kelper's law, relating Newtonian mass to force=
    =20
    and orbital periods, etc., and pointing out that if all those things were t= rue, then=20
    special relativity would be false. That is correct, but it essentially amo= unts to=20
    saying if special relativity was false then special relativity would be fal= se. It's=20
    a true statement, but it has no meaningful cognitive content. "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Sep 5 19:10:34 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:22:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    What I meant to convey was that the distant observer will infer that Big
    Ben is ticking off time at a rate only half as fast as his own wristwatch and that this can be known by applying the relativistic doppler equation
    for the proper direction (towards or away) to the the radial velocity that he actually does measure through his telescope.

    Your wording is still sloppy. To be clear, let f1 denote the proper frequency of a physical system at rest on earth, and let f2 denote the frequency that the distant observer sees when looking at that system through his telescope. If the distant
    observer has some independent way of knowing that he is approaching the earth at speed v, and he applies the relativistic Doppler factor sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] to f2, he infers the proper frequency of the system is f1. But you're trying to say he infers a
    frequency of (1/2)f1, even though you really have no idea what that frequency represents, nor how he would infer it. And you don't want to know. Right?

    I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least in skeleton fashion
    via a few symbolic equations...

    Again, the equations have been provided to you, with clear and concise step-by-step instructions for what they mean and how to use them, and you disregarded it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Sep 5 19:28:48 2023
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:10:37 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:22:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    What I meant to convey was that the distant observer will infer that Big Ben is ticking off time at a rate only half as fast as his own wristwatch and that this can be known by applying the relativistic doppler equation for the proper direction (towards or away) to the the radial velocity that he actually does measure through his telescope.
    Your wording is still sloppy. To be clear, let f1 denote the proper frequency of a physical system at rest on earth, and let f2 denote the frequency that the distant observer sees when looking at that system through his telescope. If the distant
    observer has some independent way of knowing that he is approaching the earth at speed v, and he applies the relativistic Doppler factor sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] to f2, he infers the proper frequency of the system is f1. But you're trying to say he infers a
    frequency of (1/2)f1, even though you really have no idea what that frequency represents, nor how he would infer it. And you don't want to know. Right?
    I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least in skeleton fashion
    via a few symbolic equations...

    Again, the equations have been provided to you, with clear and concise step-by-step instructions for what they mean and how to use them, and you disregarded it.
    Take a look on sci.physics.research, Legion. None of your equations came through your paste operation unscathed. It's gibberish. Did someone over there sabotage you?

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