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...
Invariant spacetime curvature...
Will the earth spiral into the sun?
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:12:07 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:spacetime trajectory is invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.
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
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 termsInvariant 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,
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 implyWill 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
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.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:12:07 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:spacetime trajectory is invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.
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
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 termsInvariant 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,
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 implyWill 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
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.
spacetime trajectory is invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.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
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 termsInvariant 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,
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 implyWill 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
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.
The Sci.physics.research news group. You're next Don Lincoln and Fermilab video channel.
For shame! physics.stackexchange and reddit.physics.
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?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.
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 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 onI will keep these words close to my heart.
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.
It wasn't posted to sci.physics.research. Should it be?
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.
invariant, which may be surprising to you if you aren't taking the time component of the trajectory into account.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
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 componentsInvariant 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
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 ballWill 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
Ridiculous! See Einstein's First vs. Kepler's Third, ibid.
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.
Let me explain to you how moderated usenet forums works.you're uncontrollable.
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.How did you come by this wisdom, Starmaker? I demand to know.
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.
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.
Let me explain to you how moderated usenet forums works.you're uncontrollable.
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.
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.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.How did you come by this wisdom, Starmaker? I demand to know.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
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.
Let me explain to you how moderated usenet forums works.you're uncontrollable.
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.
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 properWho 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.)
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.So, if you get banned by Sci.physics.research news group, don't shoot the official moderator.How did you come by this wisdom, Starmaker? I demand to know.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
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
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 leastin 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 assumptionthat 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.
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...
Invariant spacetime curvature...
Will the earth spiral into the sun?
Ridiculous! See Einstein's First vs. Kepler's Third, ibid.
Kepler's coordinates were earth-centered.
I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least in
skeleton fashion via a few symbolic equations...
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:22:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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?
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.
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...
Invariant spacetime curvature...
Will the earth spiral into the sun?
Ridiculous! See Einstein's First vs. Kepler's Third, ibid.
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.
I would be delighted to see his GR solution limned out at least in skeleton fashion
via a few symbolic equations...
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 6:22:12 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: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
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
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?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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 14:38:48 |
Calls: | 6,983 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,416 |
Messages: | 5,452,114 |
Posted today: | 1 |