On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:37:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
Which starting point do you believe that Socrates would select, in order to demolish 1905 relativity?
Consider that such infantile fairy tale could be easily understood by him.
I would choose length contraction or its twin concept, time dilation.Socrates' method was to question. Questioning an ideologue is pointless because they did not arrive at their beliefs by reason. The response is violence instead of reasoning, as in the case of the execution of Socrates.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:29:48 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The accelerating modernization of the world is resulting in a rapidly accelerating decline in population replacement rates led by advanced economies whose populations are collapsing. This is one consequence of the rejection of religion.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:37:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
Which starting point do you believe that Socrates would select, in order to demolish 1905 relativity?
Consider that such infantile fairy tale could be easily understood by him.
I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questionerI would choose length contraction or its twin concept, time dilation.Socrates' method was to question. Questioning an ideologue is pointless because they did not arrive at their beliefs by reason. The response is violence instead of reasoning, as in the case of the execution of Socrates.
has worked for thousands of years.
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:29:48 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Populations are crashing catastrophically in socialist countries, including China and Russia, due to socialism's hostility towards the nuclear family and reluctance to welcome foreigners charitably. [Empty Planet
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:37:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
Which starting point do you believe that Socrates would select, in order to demolish 1905 relativity?
Consider that such infantile fairy tale could be easily understood by him.
I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questionerI would choose length contraction or its twin concept, time dilation.Socrates' method was to question. Questioning an ideologue is pointless because they did not arrive at their beliefs by reason. The response is violence instead of reasoning, as in the case of the execution of Socrates.
has worked for thousands of years.
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:29:48 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:AI is as empty as Paul the Heckler.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:37:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
Which starting point do you believe that Socrates would select, in order to demolish 1905 relativity?
Consider that such infantile fairy tale could be easily understood by him.
I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questionerI would choose length contraction or its twin concept, time dilation.Socrates' method was to question. Questioning an ideologue is pointless because they did not arrive at their beliefs by reason. The response is violence instead of reasoning, as in the case of the execution of Socrates.
has worked for thousands of years.
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:18:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:29:48 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:37:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
Which starting point do you believe that Socrates would select, in order
to demolish 1905 relativity?
Consider that such infantile fairy tale could be easily understood by him.
I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questionerI would choose length contraction or its twin concept, time dilation.Socrates' method was to question. Questioning an ideologue is pointless because they did not arrive at their beliefs by reason. The response is violence instead of reasoning, as in the case of the execution of Socrates.
has worked for thousands of years.
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
AI is as empty as Paul the Heckler.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 9:31:23?PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:35:37?PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:29:18?PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
I don't believe you are on the record yet Gary, regarding the BBP.
What would Socratease make of that do you think?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox
I hadn't even considered it. Interesting ... The first problem I see
is it involves general relativity, but we can change the problem and assume Big Ben has an electrical charge is orbiting an opposite charge (this will change the result somewhat). The second problem is that BB isn't inertial. IIRC, it was Robert Leighton who solved that problem
in the case of an electron orbiting a nucleus by taking small steps
and iterating, not something I'd want to do. The third problem is that the admonition of David Morin is violated:
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head should be what you observe. That is, don't try to
use reasoning along the lines of, 'Well, the person I'm looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.' This will almost certainly cause
an error somewhere along the way, because you will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is
rushing toward the observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew
path. Another complication. I'm certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was related to something I have
a personal interest. My personal interests include tachyons --
traveling in a straight line :-)
Professor Paul B. Anderson has already determined that the spacetime in which the paradox takes place is flat for all concerned, observer and earthlings. See his in-depth analysis here
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf
"He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun."
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:20:33 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:18:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:29:48 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:37:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
Which starting point do you believe that Socrates would select, in order
to demolish 1905 relativity?
Consider that such infantile fairy tale could be easily understood by him.
I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questionerI would choose length contraction or its twin concept, time dilation.Socrates' method was to question. Questioning an ideologue is pointless because they did not arrive at their beliefs by reason. The response is violence instead of reasoning, as in the case of the execution of Socrates.
has worked for thousands of years.
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
AI is as empty as Paul the Heckler.I only heckle folks who present silly arguments without even a scintilla of evidence to support
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:Please direct me to the Leighton solution in the electrostatic case. Is it in one of his text books? The electric field lines would be Lorentz contracted in the direction of travel, and so, condensed in the plane of the orbiting electron. This would
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 6:39:28 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
On September 22, Richard Hertz wrote:
I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answersIf Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
and denigrating those who disagree.
oh the irony -
--It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates
Rich
I don't believe you are on the record yet Gary, regarding the BBP. What would Socratease make of that do you think?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradoxI hadn't even considered it. Interesting ... The first problem I see is it involves general relativity, but we can
change the problem and assume Big Ben has an electrical charge is orbiting an opposite charge (this will
change the result somewhat). The second problem is that BB isn't inertial. IIRC, it was Robert Leighton who
solved that problem in the case of an electron orbiting a nucleus
something I'd want to do. The third problem is that the admonition of David Morin is violated:Your David Morin is a fool. Alarm bells should have sounded for this fool the moment he discovered the lack of reciprocity in all relativistic computations. I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and coordinate
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction
to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is rushing toward the
observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew path. Another complication. I'm
certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was
related to something I have a personal interest. My personal interests include
tachyons -- traveling in a straight line :-)
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:35:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox
I hadn't even considered it. Interesting ... The first problem I see is it involves general relativity, but we can
change the problem and assume Big Ben has an electrical charge is orbiting an opposite charge (this will
change the result somewhat). The second problem is that BB isn't inertial. IIRC, it was Robert Leighton who
solved that problem in the case of an electron orbiting a nucleus
Please direct me to the Leighton solution in the electrostatic case. Is it in one of his text books?
The electric field lines would be Lorentz contracted in the direction of travel, and so, condensed
in the plane of the orbiting electron. This would tend to increase the attractive force even further.
The same argument can be made for the earth-sun attraction, worsening the situation for the
earth's survival chances. There is no way to escape the Big Ben Paradox.
by taking small steps and iterating, not something I'd want to do. The third problem is that the
admonition of David Morin is violated:
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction
to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
Your David Morin is a fool.
Alarm bells should have sounded for this fool the moment he discovered the lack
of reciprocity in all relativistic computations.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is rushing toward the
observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew path. Another complication. I'm
certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was
related to something I have a personal interest. My personal interests include
tachyons -- traveling in a straight line :-)
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:26:38 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Gary wrote:
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction
to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
Your David Morin is a fool.
Calling smart physicists fools says more about you. Morin has something to say
to YOU:
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Besides, he's not the only one who advocates it:
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo
Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.
Alarm bells should have sounded for this fool the moment he discovered the lack
of reciprocity in all relativistic computations.
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think
it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is rushing toward the
observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew path. Another complication. I'm
certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was
related to something I have a personal interest. My personal interests include
tachyons -- traveling in a straight line :-)
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:41:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:Gary, your example fails to add in the vital ingredient of invariant spacetime curvature to the mix. This is the brilliance of the BBP which proves that relativity, General and Special, lie outside the realm of physical possibilities in our universe.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:26:38 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Gary wrote:
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction
to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
Your David Morin is a fool.
Calling smart physicists fools says more about you. Morin has something to say
to YOU:
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Besides, he's not the only one who advocates it:
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo
Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.
Alarm bells should have sounded for this fool the moment he discovered the lack
of reciprocity in all relativistic computations.
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think
it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is rushing toward the
observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew path. Another complication. I'm
certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was
related to something I have a personal interest. My personal interests include
tachyons -- traveling in a straight line :-)
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- BuddhaWhat's the matter, Pat, can't get through all the bot spam being dumped on us?
BTW, why don't you rail against this:
A has a cclock. Call it Big Ben. Ship B is traveling at 0.867c wrt A. B says BB is
running at half the speed of his clock. Ship C is traveling at 0.6c. C says BB is
running 0.8 times as fast as his clock.
How fast is BB "really" running?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:07:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:41:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:26:38 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Gary wrote:
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction
to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
Your David Morin is a fool.
Calling smart physicists fools says more about you. Morin has something to say
to YOU:
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Besides, he's not the only one who advocates it:
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics-- one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.
Alarm bells should have sounded for this fool the moment he discovered the lack
of reciprocity in all relativistic computations.
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper
velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think
it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is rushing toward the
observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew path. Another complication. I'm
certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was
related to something I have a personal interest. My personal interests include
tachyons -- traveling in a straight line :-)
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- BuddhaWhat's the matter, Pat, can't get through all the bot spam being dumped on us?
BTW, why don't you rail against this:
A has a cclock. Call it Big Ben. Ship B is traveling at 0.867c wrt A. B says BB is
running at half the speed of his clock. Ship C is traveling at 0.6c. C says BB is
running 0.8 times as fast as his clock.
How fast is BB "really" running?Gary, your example fails to add in the vital ingredient of invariant spacetime curvature to the mix. This is the brilliance of the BBP which proves that relativity, General and Special, lie outside the realm of physical possibilities in our universe.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:36:16 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:This last line is quite Hegelian in my estimation Mitch. What have you been reading lately?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:07:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:41:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:26:38 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Gary wrote:
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction
to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
Your David Morin is a fool.
Calling smart physicists fools says more about you. Morin has something to say
to YOU:
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Besides, he's not the only one who advocates it:
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics-- one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.
Alarm bells should have sounded for this fool the moment he discovered the lack
of reciprocity in all relativistic computations.
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper
velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think
it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is rushing toward the
observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew path. Another complication. I'm
certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was
related to something I have a personal interest. My personal interests include
tachyons -- traveling in a straight line :-)
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- BuddhaWhat's the matter, Pat, can't get through all the bot spam being dumped on us?
BTW, why don't you rail against this:
A has a cclock. Call it Big Ben. Ship B is traveling at 0.867c wrt A. B says BB is
running at half the speed of his clock. Ship C is traveling at 0.6c. C says BB is
running 0.8 times as fast as his clock.
Some things considered motions are just an opposite appearance.How fast is BB "really" running?Gary, your example fails to add in the vital ingredient of invariant spacetime curvature to the mix. This is the brilliance of the BBP which proves that relativity, General and Special, lie outside the realm of physical possibilities in our universe.
Begin to move on your world line and around you
is that opposite appearance.
Your real movement is creating it.
Mitchell Raemsch
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:07:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:41:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper
velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think
it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha
What's the matter, Pat, can't get through all the bot spam being dumped on us?
BTW, why don't you rail against this:
A has a cclock. Call it Big Ben. Ship B is traveling at 0.867c wrt A. B says BB is
running at half the speed of his clock. Ship C is traveling at 0.6c. C says BB is
running 0.8 times as fast as his clock.
How fast is BB "really" running?
Gary, your example fails to add in the vital ingredient of invariant spacetime curvature
to the mix.
This is the brilliance of the BBP which proves that relativity, General and Special, lie
outside the realm of physical possibilities in our universe.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:36:16 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:07:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:41:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” – Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper
velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think
it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha
What's the matter, Pat, can't get through all the bot spam being dumped on us?
BTW, why don't you rail against this:
A has a cclock. Call it Big Ben. Ship B is traveling at 0.867c wrt A. B says BB is
running at half the speed of his clock. Ship C is traveling at 0.6c. C says BB is
running 0.8 times as fast as his clock.
How fast is BB "really" running?
Gary, your example fails to add in the vital ingredient of invariant spacetime curvatureYou don't get it, Pat, I said, "Call it Big Ben." It's not, really. It's floating in flat spacetime.
to the mix.
This is the brilliance of the BBP which proves that relativity, General and Special, lieYour scenario doesn't prove anything because you didn't solve it correctly.
outside the realm of physical possibilities in our universe.
Answer MY question above: How fast is BB REALLY running
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:11:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:36:16 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:07:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:41:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper
velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha
What's the matter, Pat, can't get through all the bot spam being dumped on us?
BTW, why don't you rail against this:
A has a cclock. Call it Big Ben. Ship B is traveling at 0.867c wrt A. B says BB is
running at half the speed of his clock. Ship C is traveling at 0.6c. C says BB is
running 0.8 times as fast as his clock.
How fast is BB "really" running?
Gary, your example fails to add in the vital ingredient of invariant spacetime curvature
to the mix.
You don't get it, Pat, I said, "Call it Big Ben." It's not, really. It's floating in flat spacetime.
This is the brilliance of the BBP which proves that relativity, General and Special, lie
outside the realm of physical possibilities in our universe.
Your scenario doesn't prove anything because you didn't solve it correctly.
Answer MY question above: How fast is BB REALLY running
Will this do for an answer Gary Harnagel:
For ANY and ALL observers not in the Solar System's rest frame, Big Ben's little
hand will rotate slower than the little hands on the wristwatches of those aforesaid
observers.
From this we conclude that for ANY and All observers not in the Solar System's rest
frame, the earth is orbiting too slowly to sustain a stable orbit around the sun.
Or do you not believe that the Big Ben's little hand and the earth's orbital period are
not inexorably coupled.
(I can sense, Gary Harnagel, that the Big Ben Paradox is slowly and inexorably drawing
you in and living in your head rent free.)
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:43:24 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:You are assuming that GR and SR are both correct and consistent. My example proves that they are neither. Here, let me show you the inconsistency with GR in this gedanken:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:11:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:36:16 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:07:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:41:13 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"Reciprocity"? A sees B moving at velocity v. B sees A moving at velocity -v. Is that
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B 's length contracted, B sees A's length contracted. Is THAT
"reciprocity"? Or A sees B's time dilated, B sees A's time dilated. Is THAT "reciprocity"?
That has NOTHING to do with Morin's counsel.
I demonstrate this embarrassing fact of relativity in my analysis of proper and
coordinate relative velocities.
Your confidence is underwhelming.
“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin
If you violated Morin's admonition, you most likely got a wrong answer. In the
absence of evidence your assertion is vacuous, most likely because "proper
velocity" isn't a proper term in relativity.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think
it means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Give it up, Pat. Relativity is quite robust in its applicable domain.
“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha
What's the matter, Pat, can't get through all the bot spam being dumped on us?
BTW, why don't you rail against this:
A has a cclock. Call it Big Ben. Ship B is traveling at 0.867c wrt A. B says BB is
running at half the speed of his clock. Ship C is traveling at 0.6c. C says BB is
running 0.8 times as fast as his clock.
How fast is BB "really" running?
Gary, your example fails to add in the vital ingredient of invariant spacetime curvature
to the mix.
You don't get it, Pat, I said, "Call it Big Ben." It's not, really. It's floating in flat spacetime.
This is the brilliance of the BBP which proves that relativity, General and Special, lie
outside the realm of physical possibilities in our universe.
Your scenario doesn't prove anything because you didn't solve it correctly.
Answer MY question above: How fast is BB REALLY running
Will this do for an answer Gary Harnagel:
For ANY and ALL observers not in the Solar System's rest frame, Big Ben's littleYes, but at DIFFERENT speeds. So which one is correct? How fast is BB REALLY running?
hand will rotate slower than the little hands on the wristwatches of those aforesaid
observers.
From this we conclude that for ANY and All observers not in the Solar System's restIs it? You haven't proved that by solving GR equations.
frame, the earth is orbiting too slowly to sustain a stable orbit around the sun.
Or do you not believe that the Big Ben's little hand and the earth's orbital period are
not inexorably coupled.
(I can sense, Gary Harnagel, that the Big Ben Paradox is slowly and inexorably drawingNot at all. I'm not up to solving Big Ben moving toward me at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
you in and living in your head rent free.)
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg, also moving toward me at
0.867c. Until you can do that, you got nuttin'.
So you see Gary Harnagel, I have checkmated Albert and deserve my crown. Yes?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 6:42:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:43:24 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:11:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
You don't get it, Pat, I said, "Call it Big Ben." It's not, really. It's floating in flat spacetime.
Your scenario doesn't prove anything because you didn't solve it correctly.
Answer MY question above: How fast is BB REALLY running
Will this do for an answer Gary Harnagel:
For ANY and ALL observers not in the Solar System's rest frame, Big Ben's little
hand will rotate slower than the little hands on the wristwatches of those aforesaid
observers.
Yes, but at DIFFERENT speeds. So which one is correct? How fast is BB REALLY
running?
From this we conclude that for ANY and All observers not in the Solar System's rest
frame, the earth is orbiting too slowly to sustain a stable orbit around the sun.
Is it? You haven't proved that by solving GR equations.
You are assuming that GR and SR are both correct and consistent.
My example proves that they are neither.
Here, let me show you the inconsistency with GR in this gedanken:
In order for the earth to remain in stable orbit for all observers in all frames, the
spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun must decrease by 1/gamma
(the> demonstration of which is left as an exercise for the reader--but I'll deign to
do it for those with stricken with chronic acedia.). Okay, problem solved. Right?
Wrong! Because if spacetime curvature goes to zero as gamma approaches infinity
then the sun perforce cannot bend a beam of starlight (unless by Newtonian bending)
which is a fundamental requirement of GR. So you see Gary Harnagel, I have check-
mated Albert and deserve my crown. Yes?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 6:42:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:43:24 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:11:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
You don't get it, Pat, I said, "Call it Big Ben." It's not, really. It's floating in flat spacetime.
Your scenario doesn't prove anything because you didn't solve it correctly.
Answer MY question above: How fast is BB REALLY running
Will this do for an answer Gary Harnagel:
For ANY and ALL observers not in the Solar System's rest frame, Big Ben's little
hand will rotate slower than the little hands on the wristwatches of those aforesaid
observers.
Yes, but at DIFFERENT speeds. So which one is correct? How fast is BB REALLY
running?
From this we conclude that for ANY and All observers not in the Solar System's rest
frame, the earth is orbiting too slowly to sustain a stable orbit around the sun.
Is it? You haven't proved that by solving GR equations.
You are assuming that GR and SR are both correct and consistent.No GR in my question. And SR agrees with ALL measurements made in its domain of
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:Glad too. But later. Right now I have to perform one of the most dreaded familial tasks known: attending the wedding of the child (who I spoke to only once) of a relative.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 6:42:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:43:24 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:11:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
You don't get it, Pat, I said, "Call it Big Ben." It's not, really. It's floating in flat spacetime.
Your scenario doesn't prove anything because you didn't solve it correctly.
Answer MY question above: How fast is BB REALLY running
Will this do for an answer Gary Harnagel:
For ANY and ALL observers not in the Solar System's rest frame, Big Ben's little
hand will rotate slower than the little hands on the wristwatches of those aforesaid
observers.
Yes, but at DIFFERENT speeds. So which one is correct? How fast is BB REALLY
running?
From this we conclude that for ANY and All observers not in the Solar System's rest
frame, the earth is orbiting too slowly to sustain a stable orbit around the sun.
Is it? You haven't proved that by solving GR equations.
You are assuming that GR and SR are both correct and consistent.No GR in my question. And SR agrees with ALL measurements made in its domain of
applicability, which my question certainly is.
My example proves that they are neither.Your proof is faulty.
Here, let me show you the inconsistency with GR in this gedanken:
In order for the earth to remain in stable orbit for all observers in all frames, theA vacuous assertion with no proof.
spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun must decrease by 1/gamma
(the> demonstration of which is left as an exercise for the reader--but I'll deign toAbsolutely not! You have made only assertions with no proof.
do it for those with stricken with chronic acedia.). Okay, problem solved. Right?
Wrong! Because if spacetime curvature goes to zero as gamma approaches infinity
then the sun perforce cannot bend a beam of starlight (unless by Newtonian bending)
which is a fundamental requirement of GR. So you see Gary Harnagel, I have check-
mated Albert and deserve my crown. Yes?
Solve Big Ben moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg,
also moving toward you at 0.867c.
Until you can do that, you got nuttin'.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:The wedding was far more pleasant than I imagined it would be. Because I got to talk with my cousins and recall the memories of all our now-departed parents. But those recollections turned bitter-sweet as I glanced around at my aging un-churched
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 6:42:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:43:24 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:11:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
You don't get it, Pat, I said, "Call it Big Ben." It's not, really. It's floating in flat spacetime.
Your scenario doesn't prove anything because you didn't solve it correctly.
Answer MY question above: How fast is BB REALLY running
Will this do for an answer Gary Harnagel:
For ANY and ALL observers not in the Solar System's rest frame, Big Ben's little
hand will rotate slower than the little hands on the wristwatches of those aforesaid
observers.
Yes, but at DIFFERENT speeds. So which one is correct? How fast is BB REALLY
running?
From this we conclude that for ANY and All observers not in the Solar System's rest
frame, the earth is orbiting too slowly to sustain a stable orbit around the sun.
Is it? You haven't proved that by solving GR equations.
You are assuming that GR and SR are both correct and consistent.No GR in my question. And SR agrees with ALL measurements made in its domain of
applicability, which my question certainly is.
My example proves that they are neither.Your proof is faulty.
Here, let me show you the inconsistency with GR in this gedanken:
In order for the earth to remain in stable orbit for all observers in all frames, theA vacuous assertion with no proof.
spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun must decrease by 1/gamma
(the> demonstration of which is left as an exercise for the reader--but I'll deign toAbsolutely not! You have made only assertions with no proof.
do it for those with stricken with chronic acedia.). Okay, problem solved. Right?
Wrong! Because if spacetime curvature goes to zero as gamma approaches infinity
then the sun perforce cannot bend a beam of starlight (unless by Newtonian bending)
which is a fundamental requirement of GR. So you see Gary Harnagel, I have check-
mated Albert and deserve my crown. Yes?
Solve Big Ben moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)Glad too. But later. Right now I have to perform one of the most dreaded familial tasks known: attending the wedding of the child (who I spoke to only once) of a relative.
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg,
also moving toward you at 0.867c.
Until you can do that, you got nuttin'.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:07:13 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Your proof is faulty. A vacuous assertion with no proof.
You have made only assertions with no proof.
Solve Big Ben moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg,
also moving toward you at 0.867c.
Until you can do that, you got nuttin'.
Glad too. But later.
Gary Harnagel it is time for you to give up all hope on the possibility
that both time dilation and spacetime curvature can be true.
The BBP was the first to conclusively demonstrate that this is an impossibility.
Your hope and your claim is that if you shake your Ricci tensors and your inside
curvature and your outside curvature hard enough, a GR solution will drop out of
the many-parted, multifarious mathematical mess know as general relativity.
The BBP is here to tell you that this is a mathematical and logical impossibility.
You will never get a solution. Kip Thorne couldn't get a solution. Even Albert, Hilbert,
Ricci and Levi-Civita would be able to.
Lets first recall that the need for GR grew out of the realization that gravity had falsified
SR by 1907. This relegated SR to an odd mathematical transform that helped solve EM
problems by had no real value beyond that.
[Conspiracy rant deleted]
Let this sink in a day, Gary Harnagel. Then we shall proceed to the proof.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:10:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:20the%20paper.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:54:45 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:07:13 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Your proof is faulty. A vacuous assertion with no proof.
You have made only assertions with no proof.
Solve Big Ben moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg,
also moving toward you at 0.867c.
Until you can do that, you got nuttin'.
Glad too. But later.
Gary Harnagel it is time for you to give up all hope on the possibility that both time dilation and spacetime curvature can be true.Actually, the GPS confirms it, as do atomic clocks at NIST:
https://www.sciencecodex.com/nist_pair_of_aluminum_atomic_clocks_reveal_einsteins_relativity_at_a_personal_scale#:~:text=The%20aluminum%20clocks%20can%20detect%20small%20relativity-based%20effects,James%20Chin-Wen%20Chou%2C%20first%20author%20of%
analysis.The BBP was the first to conclusively demonstrate that this is an impossibility.Ri-i-i-ght, a flawed "thought" "experiment" versus an actual physics experiment :-)
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.” – Douglas AdamsNo, that was actually the Apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas) who first said that after the fingering incident in the upper room.
Precious Paul Anderson has painstakingly solved the problem for the helical path here https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdfYour hope and your claim is that if you shake your Ricci tensors and your insideAssertion without evidence.
curvature and your outside curvature hard enough, a GR solution will drop out of
the many-parted, multifarious mathematical mess know as general relativity.
The BBP is here to tell you that this is a mathematical and logical impossibility.Until someone solves the BBP with BB moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
You will never get a solution. Kip Thorne couldn't get a solution. Even Albert, Hilbert,
Ricci and Levi-Civita would be able to.
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg, also moving toward you
at 0.867c. Until someone does that, you got nuttin'.
He states that the SR results are almost precisely the GR results due to the relativity small masses, and therefore small curvature, involved. The helix that has you so worried is a straight line for all intents and purposes, according to the PAB
I remember damned ol' Tom Roberts having reservations about the helical path when he first laid eyes on the BBP lo those many years ago. It was all he could think of to type at the time. At least his initial response was of higher quality than Dono'sknee-jerk response: Dono accused me of antisemitism!
And you'll have nuttin' afterwardsLet me add that I do take note of your appeal to empirical results that are claimed to have proven relativity, both special and general, beyond all doubt. Two thoughts: 1) Empirical results can have many causes; and 2) many of the denizens of this forum
because it'll resolve the paradox, and you'll still have nuttin'.Agreed. And that is because of the relatively low spacetime curvature everywhere in the vicinity of the solar system--even on the surface of the earth--as the PAB paper points out.
Lets first recall that the need for GR grew out of the realization that gravity had falsifiedBlatantly false assertion. SR is used every day at particle accelerators all over the world.
SR by 1907. This relegated SR to an odd mathematical transform that helped solve EM
problems by had no real value beyond that.
[Conspiracy rant deleted]
Shall we move on to the proof? Or do you still have more objections along this helical line of reasoning?Let this sink in a day, Gary Harnagel. Then we shall proceed to the proof.It sank, and you still got nuttin'.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:54:45 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:20paper.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:07:13 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Your proof is faulty. A vacuous assertion with no proof.
You have made only assertions with no proof.
Solve Big Ben moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg,
also moving toward you at 0.867c.
Until you can do that, you got nuttin'.
Glad too. But later.
Gary Harnagel it is time for you to give up all hope on the possibility that both time dilation and spacetime curvature can be true.Actually, the GPS confirms it, as do atomic clocks at NIST:
https://www.sciencecodex.com/nist_pair_of_aluminum_atomic_clocks_reveal_einsteins_relativity_at_a_personal_scale#:~:text=The%20aluminum%20clocks%20can%20detect%20small%20relativity-based%20effects,James%20Chin-Wen%20Chou%2C%20first%20author%20of%20the%
The BBP was the first to conclusively demonstrate that this is an impossibility.Ri-i-i-ght, a flawed "thought" "experiment" versus an actual physics experiment :-)
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
Your hope and your claim is that if you shake your Ricci tensors and your insideAssertion without evidence.
curvature and your outside curvature hard enough, a GR solution will drop out of
the many-parted, multifarious mathematical mess know as general relativity.
The BBP is here to tell you that this is a mathematical and logical impossibility.Until someone solves the BBP with BB moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
You will never get a solution. Kip Thorne couldn't get a solution. Even Albert, Hilbert,
Ricci and Levi-Civita would be able to.
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg, also moving toward you
at 0.867c. Until someone does that, you got nuttin'.
because it'll resolve the paradox, and you'll still have nuttin'.
Lets first recall that the need for GR grew out of the realization that gravity had falsifiedBlatantly false assertion. SR is used every day at particle accelerators all over the world.
SR by 1907. This relegated SR to an odd mathematical transform that helped solve EM
problems by had no real value beyond that.
[Conspiracy rant deleted]
Let this sink in a day, Gary Harnagel. Then we shall proceed to the proof.It sank, and you still got nuttin'.
...a good gedanken always trumps experimental results.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:10:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:20the%20paper.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:54:45 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Gary Harnagel it is time for you to give up all hope on the possibility that both time dilation and spacetime curvature can be true.
Actually, the GPS confirms it, as do atomic clocks at NIST:
https://www.sciencecodex.com/nist_pair_of_aluminum_atomic_clocks_reveal_einsteins_relativity_at_a_personal_scale#:~:text=The%20aluminum%20clocks%20can%20detect%20small%20relativity-based%20effects,James%20Chin-Wen%20Chou%2C%20first%20author%20of%
The BBP was the first to conclusively demonstrate that this is an impossibility.
Ri-i-i-ght, a flawed "thought" "experiment" versus an actual physics experiment :-)
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
No, that was actually the Apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas) who first said that after
the fingering incident in the upper room.
Your hope and your claim is that if you shake your Ricci tensors and your inside
curvature and your outside curvature hard enough, a GR solution will drop out of
the many-parted, multifarious mathematical mess know as general relativity.
Assertion without evidence.
The BBP is here to tell you that this is a mathematical and logical impossibility.
You will never get a solution. Kip Thorne couldn't get a solution. Even Albert, Hilbert,
Ricci and Levi-Civita would be able to.
Until someone solves the BBP with BB moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg, also moving toward you
at 0.867c. Until someone does that, you got nuttin'.
Precious Paul Anderson has painstakingly solved the problem for the helical path here
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf
He states that the SR results are almost precisely the GR results due to the relativity small
masses, and therefore small curvature, involved. The helix that has you so worried is a
straight line for all intents and purposes, according to the PAB analysis.
I remember damned ol' Tom Roberts having reservations about the helical path when he first
laid eyes on the BBP lo those many years ago. It was all he could think of to type at the time.
At least his initial response was of higher quality than Dono's knee-jerk response: Dono
accused me of antisemitism!
And you'll have nuttin' afterwards because it'll resolve the paradox, and you'll still have nuttin'.
Lets first recall that the need for GR grew out of the realization that gravity had falsified
SR by 1907. This relegated SR to an odd mathematical transform that helped solve EM
problems by had no real value beyond that.
Blatantly false assertion. SR is used every day at particle accelerators all over the world.
Agreed. And that is because of the relatively low spacetime curvature everywhere in the vicinity
of the solar system--even on the surface of the earth--as the PAB paper points out.
Let this sink in a day, Gary Harnagel. Then we shall proceed to the proof.
It sank, and you still got nuttin'.
Shall we move on to the proof?
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:30:48 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:20the%20paper.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:10:13 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:54:45 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Gary Harnagel it is time for you to give up all hope on the possibility
that both time dilation and spacetime curvature can be true.
Actually, the GPS confirms it, as do atomic clocks at NIST:
https://www.sciencecodex.com/nist_pair_of_aluminum_atomic_clocks_reveal_einsteins_relativity_at_a_personal_scale#:~:text=The%20aluminum%20clocks%20can%20detect%20small%20relativity-based%20effects,James%20Chin-Wen%20Chou%2C%20first%20author%20of%
Now we are getting somewhere, Gary Harnagel. This Socratic questioning stuff is starting to work. So let's continue. Please apprise the forum of Joseph Weber's expression for the acceleration, a, of the earth as a function of gamma, or relativeThe BBP was the first to conclusively demonstrate that this is an impossibility.
Ri-i-i-ght, a flawed "thought" "experiment" versus an actual physics experiment :-)
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something
that has clearly happened.” – Douglas Adams
No, that was actually the Apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas) who first said that afterCome now, Pat, all Thomas said was "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28).
the fingering incident in the upper room.
Would you perjure yourself on so inconsequential thing?
Your hope and your claim is that if you shake your Ricci tensors and your inside
curvature and your outside curvature hard enough, a GR solution will drop out of
the many-parted, multifarious mathematical mess know as general relativity.
Assertion without evidence.
The BBP is here to tell you that this is a mathematical and logical impossibility.
You will never get a solution. Kip Thorne couldn't get a solution. Even Albert, Hilbert,
Ricci and Levi-Civita would be able to.
Until someone solves the BBP with BB moving toward you at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
while describing a corkscrew path around a mass of 2e30 kg, also moving toward you
at 0.867c. Until someone does that, you got nuttin'.
Precious Paul Anderson has painstakingly solved the problem for the helical path hereThanks for the reference, Pat. It seems he didn't really put your doubts to rest, did he. Your
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf
He states that the SR results are almost precisely the GR results due to the relativity small
masses, and therefore small curvature, involved. The helix that has you so worried is a
straight line for all intents and purposes, according to the PAB analysis.
real concern is that since BB is running slow, that means that somehow the velocity of the
earth around the sun is out of kilter and earth won't stay in orbit.
This concern of yours happens because you jump frames, something that knowledgeable
physicists have told you not to do. Stay in the frame of the observer who sees the sun hurtling
toward him at 0.867c. There are two questions that must be answered:
(1) What does the distant observer measure as the speed of the earth around the sun?
(2) What does the distant observer measure as the acceleration at the earth due to the sun's
gravity and motion?
You have assumed that (2) is a = GM/R^2. Thanks to the link to Paul's calculations, I was
reminded that (2) has also been solved by Joseph Weber, General Relativity and Gravitational
Waves, Interscience Publishers, NY (1961), p. 160.
As it turns out, he derived the acceleration due to a moving gravitating body, and it is also
modified. I'm afraid that your concern is groundless.
I remember damned ol' Tom Roberts having reservations about the helical path when he firstHe and I don't get along very well :-)
laid eyes on the BBP lo those many years ago. It was all he could think of to type at the time.
At least his initial response was of higher quality than Dono's knee-jerk response: Dono
accused me of antisemitism!
And you'll have nuttin' afterwards because it'll resolve the paradox, and you'll still have nuttin'.
Lets first recall that the need for GR grew out of the realization that gravity had falsified
SR by 1907. This relegated SR to an odd mathematical transform that helped solve EM
problems by had no real value beyond that.
Blatantly false assertion. SR is used every day at particle accelerators all over the world.
Agreed. And that is because of the relatively low spacetime curvature everywhere in the vicinityYes, and SR works when spacetime curvature is not significant for the problem. So please
of the solar system--even on the surface of the earth--as the PAB paper points out.
apologize for your groundless assertion.
Let this sink in a day, Gary Harnagel. Then we shall proceed to the proof.
It sank, and you still got nuttin'.
Shall we move on to the proof?I gave the disproof of your conclusion: you assumed that the distant observer would
measure the attraction of the sun as a = GM/r^2, which is false, as derived by Joseph
Weber.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 3:46:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
This concern of yours happens because you jump frames, something that knowledgeable
physicists have told you not to do. Stay in the frame of the observer who sees the sun hurtling
toward him at 0.867c. There are two questions that must be answered:
(1) What does the distant observer measure as the speed of the earth around the sun?
(2) What does the distant observer measure as the acceleration at the earth due to the sun's
gravity and motion?
You have assumed that (2) is a = GM/R^2. Thanks to the link to Paul's calculations, I was
reminded that (2) has also been solved by Joseph Weber, General Relativity and Gravitational
Waves, Interscience Publishers, NY (1961), p. 160.
As it turns out, he derived the acceleration due to a moving gravitating body, and it is also
modified. I'm afraid that your concern is groundless.
I gave the disproof of your conclusion: you assumed that the distant observer would
measure the attraction of the sun as a = GM/r^2, which is false, as derived by Joseph
Weber.
Now we are getting somewhere, Gary Harnagel. This Socratic questioning stuff is starting
to work. So let's continue. Please apprise the forum of Joseph Weber's expression for the
acceleration, a, of the earth as a function of gamma, or relative velocity, or how ever you see
fit.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:24:12 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 3:46:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
This concern of yours happens because you jump frames, something that knowledgeable
physicists have told you not to do. Stay in the frame of the observer who sees the sun hurtling
toward him at 0.867c. There are two questions that must be answered:
(1) What does the distant observer measure as the speed of the earth around the sun?
(2) What does the distant observer measure as the acceleration at the earth due to the sun's
gravity and motion?
You have assumed that (2) is a = GM/R^2. Thanks to the link to Paul's calculations, I was
reminded that (2) has also been solved by Joseph Weber, General Relativity and Gravitational
Waves, Interscience Publishers, NY (1961), p. 160.
As it turns out, he derived the acceleration due to a moving gravitating body, and it is also
modified. I'm afraid that your concern is groundless.
I gave the disproof of your conclusion: you assumed that the distant observer would
measure the attraction of the sun as a = GM/r^2, which is false, as derived by Joseph
Weber.
Now we are getting somewhere, Gary Harnagel. This Socratic questioning stuff is startingWeber derived this equation from GR:
to work. So let's continue. Please apprise the forum of Joseph Weber's expression for the
acceleration, a, of the earth as a function of gamma, or relative velocity, or how ever you see
fit.
c² d²x/ds² = Del GM/R (1 + v/c)
retaining terms only up to v/c, where v = 0.867c for your scenario, and ignoring terms due to
acceleration of M (which is zero). Given that the Newtonian gravitational potential at the
distant observer is V = GM/R, the effective potential is V' = GM(1 + v/c)/R.
So the distant observer can calculate the potential at earth orbit as GM(1 + v/c)/r, where r is
the distance of earth from the sun. QED.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:01:33 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
...a good gedanken always trumps experimental results.
Lol. Only in your demented fantasy world, Dolan!
Dolan, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. If experimental results differ from a theory (including a "good gedanken"), it is the theory/gedanken which is wrong
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:43:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Weber derived this equation from GR:
c² d²x/ds² = Del GM/R (1 + v/c)
retaining terms only up to v/c, where v = 0.867c for your scenario, and ignoring terms due to
acceleration of M (which is zero). Given that the Newtonian gravitational potential at the
distant observer is V = GM/R, the effective potential is V' = GM(1 + v/c)/R.
So the distant observer can calculate the potential at earth orbit as GM(1 + v/c)/r, where r is
the distance of earth from the sun. QED.
Let me get this straight, Gary Harnagel...Weber is putting forth the idea that in our BBP observer's
frame the gravitational potential for the earth **increases** with increasing relative velocity????
Is that what you understand Weber's position to be???? If yes, and we differentiate that increased
potential wrt r we find that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun will exert an increasing
attraction on the earth with increasing relative velocity of the observer. Do I mark you correctly,
Gary Harnagel?
Respectfully,
Dolsocrates
On 10/1/2023 1:50 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:01:33 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
...a good gedanken always trumps experimental results.
Lol. Only in your demented fantasy world, Dolan!
Man, does it hurt when hot coffee goes out your nose!
Paul, I blame you since I missed this stupidity in Dolan's post.
Dolan, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. If experimental results differ from a theory (including a "good gedanken"), it is the theory/gedanken which is wrong, not nature itself! Believing the gedanken over nature is an
example of delusional thinking. Delusional thinking is, of course, a
symptom of many forms of mental illnesses. Particularly schizophrenia.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 13:36:49 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman
Or maybe its a fault of improper, broken, not really real
and forbidden by your insane church GPS clocks, which
keep ignoring your mad assertions and measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:47:54 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 13:36:49 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman
Or maybe its a fault of improper, broken, not really realWozzie-boy, you keep posting this same baloney, which proves conclusively that you have a screw loose in your brain pan:
and forbidden by your insane church GPS clocks, which
keep ignoring your mad assertions and measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:27:01 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing the centrifugal force of
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:43:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Weber derived this equation from GR:
c² d²x/ds² = Del GM/R (1 + v/c)
retaining terms only up to v/c, where v = 0.867c for your scenario, and ignoring terms due to
acceleration of M (which is zero). Given that the Newtonian gravitational potential at the
distant observer is V = GM/R, the effective potential is V' = GM(1 + v/c)/R.
So the distant observer can calculate the potential at earth orbit as GM(1 + v/c)/r, where r is
the distance of earth from the sun. QED.
Let me get this straight, Gary Harnagel...Weber is putting forth the idea that in our BBP observer's
frame the gravitational potential for the earth **increases** with increasing relative velocity????
Is that what you understand Weber's position to be???? If yes, and we differentiate that increased
potential wrt r we find that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun will exert an increasing
attraction on the earth with increasing relative velocity of the observer. Do I mark you correctly,
Gary Harnagel?
Respectfully,
Dolsocrates:-)
Not quite. I took a shortcut from the actual equation. The v/c is actually (v dot R)/c|R| where
v and R are vectors (R begins at the distant observer and ends at the mass M). Since v is along
R, the result is v/c for the BBP scenario. So we must set up our situation:
Observer _________ v <--- M
0 ______________________ R
So v is negative and R is positive in this scenario. Therefore, V' < V.
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 13:58:14 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:An ideology is defended by struggle sessions with unreasonable demands.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:47:54 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 13:36:49 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman
Or maybe its a fault of improper, broken, not really realWozzie-boy, you keep posting this same baloney, which proves conclusively that you have a screw loose in your brain pan:
and forbidden by your insane church GPS clocks, which
keep ignoring your mad assertions and measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting differentDo you wan't to say that the idiot didn't even know
results." -- Albert Einstein
the concept of probability? While he was a true idiot,
sure, - doubtful.
Anyway, I don't really expect any results different than
fierce barking and spitting of brainwashed relativistic
doggies, usual for them.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:32:05 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:27:01 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Let me get this straight, Gary Harnagel...Weber is putting forth the idea that in our BBP observer's
frame the gravitational potential for the earth **increases** with increasing relative velocity????
Is that what you understand Weber's position to be???? If yes, and we differentiate that increased
potential wrt r we find that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun will exert an increasing
attraction on the earth with increasing relative velocity of the observer. Do I mark you correctly,
Gary Harnagel?
Respectfully,
Dolsocrates
:-)
Not quite. I took a shortcut from the actual equation. The v/c is actually (v dot R)/c|R| where
v and R are vectors (R begins at the distant observer and ends at the mass M). Since v is along
R, the result is v/c for the BBP scenario. So we must set up our situation:
Observer _________ v <--- M
0 ______________________ R
So v is negative and R is positive in this scenario. Therefore, V' < V.
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing
the centrifugal force of the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when
compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental question Gary Harnagel?
Dolocrates
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:37:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Irony, historically created by Socrates, combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.
If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
A childish tantrum.
How do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?
--
Jan
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:01:17 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:32:05 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:27:01 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Let me get this straight, Gary Harnagel...Weber is putting forth the idea that in our BBP observer's
frame the gravitational potential for the earth **increases** with increasing relative velocity????
Is that what you understand Weber's position to be???? If yes, and we differentiate that increased
potential wrt r we find that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun will exert an increasing
attraction on the earth with increasing relative velocity of the observer. Do I mark you correctly,
Gary Harnagel?
Respectfully,
Dolsocrates
:-)
Not quite. I took a shortcut from the actual equation. The v/c is actually (v dot R)/c|R| where
v and R are vectors (R begins at the distant observer and ends at the mass M). Since v is along
R, the result is v/c for the BBP scenario. So we must set up our situation:
Observer _________ v <--- M
0 ______________________ R
So v is negative and R is positive in this scenario. Therefore, V' < V.
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this
forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing
the centrifugal force of the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when
compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental
question Gary Harnagel?
DolocratesNow you're trying to weasel out by claiming it might not be in exact agreement
in the result. That would be impossible to determine because the SR value is and approximation and the Weber value is also an approximation, probably worse than the SR error. Remember? Good only to v/c, and you chose a really big v.
The fundamental fact is that you assumed the curvature (actually, the acceleration)
due to the sun is the same for BB as well as for a distant observer in relative motion.
It is categorically not, so that blows your whole "paradox" out of the water. So please
get off the BBP soap box. I'm sure you can find some other "paradox" to rail about.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 9:54:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:01:17 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:32:05 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:27:01 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Let me get this straight, Gary Harnagel...Weber is putting forth the idea that in our BBP observer's
frame the gravitational potential for the earth **increases** with increasing relative velocity????
Is that what you understand Weber's position to be???? If yes, and we differentiate that increased
potential wrt r we find that the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun will exert an increasing
attraction on the earth with increasing relative velocity of the observer. Do I mark you correctly,
Gary Harnagel?
Respectfully,
Dolsocrates
:-)
Not quite. I took a shortcut from the actual equation. The v/c is actually (v dot R)/c|R| where
v and R are vectors (R begins at the distant observer and ends at the mass M). Since v is along
R, the result is v/c for the BBP scenario. So we must set up our situation:
Observer _________ v <--- M
0 ______________________ R
So v is negative and R is positive in this scenario. Therefore, V' < V.
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this
forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing
the centrifugal force of the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when
compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental
question Gary Harnagel?
Dolocrates
Now you're trying to weasel out by claiming it might not be in exact agreement
in the result. That would be impossible to determine because the SR value is
and approximation and the Weber value is also an approximation, probably worse than the SR error. Remember? Good only to v/c, and you chose a really
big v.
The fundamental fact is that you assumed the curvature (actually, the acceleration)
due to the sun is the same for BB as well as for a distant observer in relative motion.
It is categorically not, so that blows your whole "paradox" out of the water. So please
get off the BBP soap box. I'm sure you can find some other "paradox" to rail about.
I value and treasure this response of yours, Gary Harnagel. We continue to make great
progress utilizing the Socratic method. Let me characterize were we now stand in the
argument:
You and Weber hold forth an opinion (similar to Legion's inside vs. outside curvature)
that the spacetime curvature actually, the acceleration [sic] is NOT THE SAME in the
distant observer's frame as it is in the solar system's frame. Do I characterize you fairly,
my boy? if yes, then can you please posit for this forum an equation specifying the
curvature's (actually, the acceleration) dependance on the relative velocity between the
distant observer to the solar system?
Thank you in advance,
Dolocrates
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
I value and treasure this response of yours, Gary Harnagel. We continue to make great
progress utilizing the Socratic method. Let me characterize were we now stand in the
argument:
You and Weber hold forth an opinion (similar to Legion's inside vs. outside curvature)
that the spacetime curvature actually, the acceleration [sic] is NOT THE SAME in the
distant observer's frame as it is in the solar system's frame. Do I characterize you fairly,
my boy? if yes, then can you please posit for this forum an equation specifying the
curvature's (actually, the acceleration) dependance on the relative velocity between the
distant observer to the solar system?
Thank you in advance,
Dolocrates
First of all, Pat, I am not "your boy" and second, I have already done that 2 days ago:
"Weber derived this equation from GR:
c² d²x/ds² = Del GM/R (1 + v/c)
retaining terms only up to v/c, where v = 0.867c for your scenario, and ignoring terms due to
acceleration of M (which is zero). Given that the Newtonian gravitational potential at the
distant observer is V = GM/R, the effective potential is V' = GM(1 + v/c)/R." And third, the only opinion I hold is that the acceleration due to the sun at the earth's orbit
according to GR is different from that according to Newton. I do not say what that difference
is because (1) Weber implies there are actually more terms than v/c, (2) I'm not able to verify
Weber's derivation for myself and (3) there's a problem with Weber's derivation.
As a would-be Socrates, I'm surprised that you haven't seen the problem. You were ready to
pounce on it when I first produced Weber's equation, but you were deflected when I explained
that v and R had opposite signs. The real Socrates would have asked the question, "But what if
an observer were moving AWAY from the sun? That wouldn't change the SR time dilation but
WOULD make V' > V and ... the earth would spiral into the sun. So application of Weber's
derivation to the BBP lacks a bit in it's ability to get the correct sense of V'. It's possible that
Weber did something like take a square root and assumed only one of the two possible roots.
So I'm giving you a C- as a Socrates avatar. But I still give your BBP an F because it assumes V' = V,
which it clearly is not. And since V' <> V, the paradox must be vacated.
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing the centrifugal forceof the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental question Gary Harnagel?
Dolocrates
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:18:48 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
Okay, let's try it with relativity.
Q. What is relativity?
A. There are two theories, special relativity and general relativity. I'll assume
you mean the simpler first one to answer your question. It is a physical theory
derived from two basic postulates, plus a couple of other assumptions, all of
which have been tested experimentally within the domain of applicability of the theory.
Q. Why it was needed?
A. Because nature wasn't behaving the way earlier theories predicted.
“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
Den 02.10.2023 20:01, skrev patdolan:force of the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental question Gary Harnagel?
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing the centrifugal
DolocratesSo the subject is orbital motion observed in different frames.
Did you know that according to Newtonian mechanics,
orbital motion is a great paradox?
The Moon paradox:
-----------------
M = mass of Earth
m = mass of Moon
r = distance Earth - Moon
G = gravitational constant
In an inertial frame where the Earth is stationary: ---------------------------------------------------
According to Newtonian mechanics:
Only one force is acting on the Moon:
The centripetal force GMm/r².
This force is giving Earth the centripetal acceleration a = GM/r²,
which make the Moon move in orbit.
In the Moon frame:
------------------
I am standing on the Moon.
I see that the centre of the Earth is stationary
vertically over my head.
According to Newtonian mechanics:
The Earth is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is towards the Earth.
The centrifugal force is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is away from the Earth.
The result is that there is no net force and no acceleration
of the Moon, which I can see is true; the distance to Earth
is constant, so the Moon and I do not accelerate towards the Earth.
So I must conclude:
Since the Moon isn't accelerating, it will move in a straight line,
and can not orbit the Earth.
So there we are.
With your Big-Ben paradox, you have show that SR is inconsistent.
With my Moon paradox, I have shown that NM is inconsistent
Must be go back to Aristotelian mechanics? :-J
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:31:30 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:Contribute in a meaningful way, Muttons. Do you accept Dolileo's equation for all frames? If not, why not?
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rWell, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is observed from a non-inertial frame of reference.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:23:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:31:30 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is observed from a non-inertial frame of reference.
Contribute in a meaningful way, Muttons. Do you accept Dolileo's equation for all frames? If not, why not?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:28:48 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:consider that he had made an error in his calculations because that is just plain crazy!
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:23:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:31:30 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is observed from a non-inertial frame of reference.
Contribute in a meaningful way, Muttons. Do you accept Dolileo's equation for all frames? If not, why not?Why would anyone accept what you say when you make the senseless claim that an observer could, under certain circumstances, be able to cause the Earth to spiral into the Sun, simply by observing? Anyone with even 2 functioning neurons would immediately
Are you just plain crazy?AND YET(!) Muttons, that is EXACTLY the conclusion that relativity leads us too. So if you accept both special and relativity, by your own (beautiful) standard, you are bat-sh&t crazy. But don't give up hope Muttons. Perhaps Gary will come up with
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. And that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP:
"This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
Dolileo
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP:
"This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can'tPat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP:
"This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP:
"This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP: "This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something
like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance to renege.
Dolocrates
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7:59:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP: "This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something
like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance to renege.
DolocratesC'mon, Pat, you're getting a bit hyper here. I already pointed out that (1 - v/c) is APPROXIMATE.
I also pointed out that 1/(1 + v/c) expanded in a series has the first two terms 1 - v/c. I also
showed that 1/(1 + v/c) = 0.536, yet you're trying to con me into saying I.ll stand by 1 - v/c which
is only 0.133. Aren't you even a bit ashamed of such dishonesty, not to mention the fact that
your assertion that, by GR, the distant observer sees GM/r, the same as BB, from his perspective,
which is roundly refuted. You got nuttin', Pat. I told you that before, so you've wasted a lot of
time. But thanks anyway 'cause working this out was a lot of fun for me.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:immediately consider that he had made an error in his calculations because that is just plain crazy!
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:28:48 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:23:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:31:30 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is observed from a non-inertial frame of reference.
Contribute in a meaningful way, Muttons. Do you accept Dolileo's equation for all frames? If not, why not?Why would anyone accept what you say when you make the senseless claim that an observer could, under certain circumstances, be able to cause the Earth to spiral into the Sun, simply by observing? Anyone with even 2 functioning neurons would
something to save the day....Are you just plain crazy?
AND YET(!) Muttons, that is EXACTLY the conclusion that relativity leads us too. So if you accept both special and relativity, by your own (beautiful) standard, you are bat-sh&t crazy. But don't give up hope Muttons. Perhaps Gary will come up with
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:18:48 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
You could try to break the "circular reasoning" embedded into any advanced AI engine, like ChatGPT.
- What is religion?
- Why it was needed?
- Which consequences existed without any religion, in the past?
- What is religion today?
- Why many people reject religion nowadays?
- What are the consequences of massive rejection of religion today?
- Is religion being replaced by anything else?
- Why such replacement happens?
- What are the consequences of current rejection of religion?
- Are similitude between current rejection of religion and ancient rejection of religion?
- Etc, etc, etc.
Interesting to see what has AI in the bottom of the questioning pit.
The above list is based on forensic dissection of any concept, like relativity.
Okay, let's try it with relativity.
Q. What is relativity?
A. There are two theories, special relativity and general relativity. I'll assume
you mean the simpler first one to answer your question. It is a physical theory
derived from two basic postulates, plus a couple of other assumptions, all of which have been tested experimentally within the domain of applicability of the theory.
Q. Why it was needed?
A. Because nature wasn't behaving the way earlier theories predicted.
"Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature."
-- Lawrence M. Krauss
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:36:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:force of the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental question Gary Harnagel?
Den 02.10.2023 20:01, skrev patdolan:
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing the centrifugal
So the subject is orbital motion observed in different frames.
Dolocrates
Did you know that according to Newtonian mechanics,
orbital motion is a great paradox?
The Moon paradox:
-----------------
M = mass of Earth
m = mass of Moon
r = distance Earth - Moon
G = gravitational constant
In an inertial frame where the Earth is stationary:
---------------------------------------------------
According to Newtonian mechanics:
Only one force is acting on the Moon:
The centripetal force GMm/r².
This force is giving Earth the centripetal acceleration a = GM/r²,
which make the Moon move in orbit.
In the Moon frame:
------------------
I am standing on the Moon.
I see that the centre of the Earth is stationary
vertically over my head.
According to Newtonian mechanics:
The Earth is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is towards the Earth.
The centrifugal force is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is away from the Earth.
The result is that there is no net force and no acceleration
of the Moon, which I can see is true; the distance to Earth
is constant, so the Moon and I do not accelerate towards the Earth.
So I must conclude:
Since the Moon isn't accelerating, it will move in a straight line,
and can not orbit the Earth.
So there we are.
With your Big-Ben paradox, you have show that SR is inconsistent.
With my Moon paradox, I have shown that NM is inconsistent
Must be go back to Aristotelian mechanics? :-J
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Rather than Aristotle & Socrates, might we consider Galileo's methods, now that the time for calculations has arrived. Galileo would think about it and conclude the following:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames"
No, Galileo wouldn't say that.
He would know that there is no force acting outwards on the Moon.
That's why the Moon is accelerating and orbiting the Earth.
Den 03.10.2023 21:31, skrev patdolan:force of the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental question Gary Harnagel?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:36:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 02.10.2023 20:01, skrev patdolan:
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing the centrifugal
So the subject is orbital motion observed in different frames.
Dolocrates
Did you know that according to Newtonian mechanics,
orbital motion is a great paradox?
The Moon paradox:
-----------------
M = mass of Earth
m = mass of Moon
r = distance Earth - Moon
G = gravitational constant
In an inertial frame where the Earth is stationary:
---------------------------------------------------
According to Newtonian mechanics:
Only one force is acting on the Moon:
The centripetal force GMm/r².
This force is giving Earth the centripetal acceleration a = GM/r²,
which make the Moon move in orbit.
In the Moon frame:
------------------
I am standing on the Moon.
I see that the centre of the Earth is stationary
vertically over my head.
According to Newtonian mechanics:
The Earth is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is towards the Earth.
The centrifugal force is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is away from the Earth.
The result is that there is no net force and no acceleration
of the Moon, which I can see is true; the distance to Earth
is constant, so the Moon and I do not accelerate towards the Earth.
So I must conclude:
Since the Moon isn't accelerating, it will move in a straight line,
and can not orbit the Earth.
So there we are.
With your Big-Ben paradox, you have show that SR is inconsistent.
With my Moon paradox, I have shown that NM is inconsistent
Must be go back to Aristotelian mechanics? :-J
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Rather than Aristotle & Socrates, might we consider Galileo's methods, now that the time for calculations has arrived. Galileo would think about it and conclude the following:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames"No, Galileo wouldn't say that.
He would know that there is no force acting outwards on the Moon.
That's why the Moon is accelerating and orbiting the Earth.
But you were probably joking. Ha Ha.
--The barycenter of the earth-moon system is a few kilometers beneath the surface of the earth and describes a perfect ellipse around the sun, whilst the moon and earth keep exchanging the lead in an endless race around the sun. Their mutual attraction,
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:force of the orbiting earth to a degree that is different when compared to the solar system's frame? Can you address this most fundamental question Gary Harnagel?
Den 03.10.2023 21:31, skrev patdolan:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:36:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 02.10.2023 20:01, skrev patdolan:
But the question which is central to the solution of the BBP--and which this forum is begging you to address, Gary Harnagel--is whether or not in the observer's frame the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the Sun is opposing the centrifugal
aka the spacetime curvature in their immediate vicinity, drives them together whilst mv^2/r drives them apart, also in and endless and perfectly balanced dance force and curvature. Si?The barycenter of the earth-moon system is a few kilometers beneath the surface of the earth and describes a perfect ellipse around the sun, whilst the moon and earth keep exchanging the lead in an endless race around the sun. Their mutual attraction,No, Galileo wouldn't say that.So the subject is orbital motion observed in different frames.
Dolocrates
Did you know that according to Newtonian mechanics,
orbital motion is a great paradox?
The Moon paradox:
-----------------
M = mass of Earth
m = mass of Moon
r = distance Earth - Moon
G = gravitational constant
In an inertial frame where the Earth is stationary:
---------------------------------------------------
According to Newtonian mechanics:
Only one force is acting on the Moon:
The centripetal force GMm/r².
This force is giving Earth the centripetal acceleration a = GM/r²,
which make the Moon move in orbit.
In the Moon frame:
------------------
I am standing on the Moon.
I see that the centre of the Earth is stationary
vertically over my head.
According to Newtonian mechanics:
The Earth is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is towards the Earth.
The centrifugal force is exerting the force GMm/r² on the Moon.
This force is away from the Earth.
The result is that there is no net force and no acceleration
of the Moon, which I can see is true; the distance to Earth
is constant, so the Moon and I do not accelerate towards the Earth.
So I must conclude:
Since the Moon isn't accelerating, it will move in a straight line,
and can not orbit the Earth.
So there we are.
With your Big-Ben paradox, you have show that SR is inconsistent.
With my Moon paradox, I have shown that NM is inconsistent
Must be go back to Aristotelian mechanics? :-J
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Rather than Aristotle & Socrates, might we consider Galileo's methods, now that the time for calculations has arrived. Galileo would think about it and conclude the following:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames"
He would know that there is no force acting outwards on the Moon.
That's why the Moon is accelerating and orbiting the Earth.
But you were probably joking. Ha Ha.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Dolileo
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:16:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7:59:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP: "This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something
like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance to renege.
Gary Harnagel, we have come to that point in all Socratic dialectics where it's heads I win, tails you lose. That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of the following options:DolocratesC'mon, Pat, you're getting a bit hyper here. I already pointed out that (1 - v/c) is APPROXIMATE.
I also pointed out that 1/(1 + v/c) expanded in a series has the first two terms 1 - v/c. I also
showed that 1/(1 + v/c) = 0.536, yet you're trying to con me into saying I.ll stand by 1 - v/c which
is only 0.133. Aren't you even a bit ashamed of such dishonesty, not to mention the fact that
your assertion that, by GR, the distant observer sees GM/r, the same as BB, from his perspective,
which is roundly refuted. You got nuttin', Pat. I told you that before, so you've wasted a lot of
time. But thanks anyway 'cause working this out was a lot of fun for me.
a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreases
b) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction remains unchanged
c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth nor the attraction of the sun
d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun change
Please select any one of these mutually exclusive pieces of cheese. In all four events, the Socratic trap I've set for you will snap down on your tail in a most painful manner.
There is one more option. The Mitch McConnell option e) you freeze and do nothing as you realize that you have been caught in the blinding brilliance of the great Dolocrates!
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:16:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7:59:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP: "This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something
like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance to renege.
DolocratesC'mon, Pat, you're getting a bit hyper here. I already pointed out that (1 - v/c) is APPROXIMATE.
I also pointed out that 1/(1 + v/c) expanded in a series has the first two terms 1 - v/c. I also
showed that 1/(1 + v/c) = 0.536, yet you're trying to con me into saying I.ll stand by 1 - v/c which
is only 0.133. Aren't you even a bit ashamed of such dishonesty, not to mention the fact that
your assertion that, by GR, the distant observer sees GM/r, the same as BB, from his perspective,
which is roundly refuted. You got nuttin', Pat. I told you that before, so you've wasted a lot of
time. But thanks anyway 'cause working this out was a lot of fun for me.
Gary Harnagel, we have come to that point in all Socratic dialectics where it's heads I win, tails
you lose.
That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of the
following options:
a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreases
b) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction remains
unchanged
c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth nor
the attraction of the sun
d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun change
Please select any one of these mutually exclusive pieces of cheese. In all four events,
the Socratic trap I've set for you will snap down on your tail in a most painful manner.
There is one more option. The Mitch McConnell option e) you freeze and do nothing
as you realize that you have been caught in the blinding brilliance of the great Dolocrates!
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:14:25 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:16:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7:59:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP:
"This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something
like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance to renege.
DolocratesC'mon, Pat, you're getting a bit hyper here. I already pointed out that (1 - v/c) is APPROXIMATE.
I also pointed out that 1/(1 + v/c) expanded in a series has the first two terms 1 - v/c. I also
showed that 1/(1 + v/c) = 0.536, yet you're trying to con me into saying I.ll stand by 1 - v/c which
is only 0.133. Aren't you even a bit ashamed of such dishonesty, not to mention the fact that
your assertion that, by GR, the distant observer sees GM/r, the same as BB, from his perspective,
which is roundly refuted. You got nuttin', Pat. I told you that before, so you've wasted a lot of
time. But thanks anyway 'cause working this out was a lot of fun for me.
Gary Harnagel, we have come to that point in all Socratic dialectics where it's heads I win, tailsI think you have the pronouns reversed.
you lose.
That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of theI don't need to because you lost. The problem is, you ain't smart enough to realize it.
following options:
a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreasesNope. I even showed you that a GR approximation agrees within 7% of the SR prediction,
but you have the unmitigated gall to press forward with your asinine agenda, Physics is local, Pat, but you keep trying to pretend that it;'s not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
Based on that principle alone, an observer trillions of miles away cannot possibly
affect what happens to the earth.
b) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction remainsNot by GR, not by SR.
unchanged
c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth norNot by SR.
the attraction of the sun
d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun changeThis one is correct, because physics is local. What an observer measures far away
cannot affect what he measures. Well, only insignificantly according to QM, and then
only tiny things, certainly not the earth :-).
Please select any one of these mutually exclusive pieces of cheese. In all four events,That is a delusional conclusion on your part. Socrates would never have done that.
the Socratic trap I've set for you will snap down on your tail in a most painful manner.
There is one more option. The Mitch McConnell option e) you freeze and do nothingThe Dolodelusional is like the Egyptians who lost a battle but went home and declared
as you realize that you have been caught in the blinding brilliance of the great Dolocrates!
they were victorious. Dolodelerious walks like an Eqyptian, dishonestly spreading propaganda.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=walk+like+an+egyptian+music+video#id=1&vid=f4aa594448073e26d382e57c18b245e4&action=click
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:14:25 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:disappeared from this forum forever. Couldn't take the mortification I guess. You told me to "get a job" then stalked of the thread, as I recall. Ah, those were the days. The good ol' BBP. It still has the power to end careers.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:16:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7:59:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP:
"This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something
like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance to renege.
Gary Harnagel, we have come to that point in all Socratic dialectics where it's heads I win, tails you lose. That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of the following options:DolocratesC'mon, Pat, you're getting a bit hyper here. I already pointed out that (1 - v/c) is APPROXIMATE.
I also pointed out that 1/(1 + v/c) expanded in a series has the first two terms 1 - v/c. I also
showed that 1/(1 + v/c) = 0.536, yet you're trying to con me into saying I.ll stand by 1 - v/c which
is only 0.133. Aren't you even a bit ashamed of such dishonesty, not to mention the fact that
your assertion that, by GR, the distant observer sees GM/r, the same as BB, from his perspective,
which is roundly refuted. You got nuttin', Pat. I told you that before, so you've wasted a lot of
time. But thanks anyway 'cause working this out was a lot of fun for me.
a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreases
b) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction remains unchanged
c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth nor the attraction of the sun
d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun change
Please select any one of these mutually exclusive pieces of cheese. In all four events, the Socratic trap I've set for you will snap down on your tail in a most painful manner.
There is one more option. The Mitch McConnell option e) you freeze and do nothing as you realize that you have been caught in the blinding brilliance of the great Dolocrates!Hey Jan. Does this remind you of the good ol' days. Remember? Remember when euroHenry proposed a variable solar attraction dependent on relative velocity? Just like poor ol' Gary Harnagel has. euroHenry's blunder gave birth to the BBP. euroHenry
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:15:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:14:25 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:16:10 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7:59:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:56:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 6:53:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 1:31:30 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance thePat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
attraction of the sun in both frames if the BBP is to be defeated. We can't
calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber
ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.
But we can calculate the centrifugal force on the earth in both frames. AndAnd Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
that will tell us how the sun's attraction must vary, if at all, between frames.
We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/rPaul Alsing wrote:
"Well, actually that is the equation for centripetal force, which is observed from
an inertial frame of reference, whereas the fictitious pseudo centrifugal force is
observed from a non-inertial frame of reference."
From a heliocentric frame, mv^2/r = GMm/r^2. v = sqrt(GM/r), T = 2pi r/sqrt(GM/r)
T = 2pi sqrt(r/GM)
We can use the Lorentz transforms to adjust the values in this equation between
frames. We have the assurance of no less than Professor Paul Anderson that doing
so will result in at most an error of trivial value https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf/ I
past below the last line of his painstaking analysis of the BBP:
"This is very close to the same value as SR gave, the difference is 3 · 10−8 year or ca
1 second. So SR is a good approximation in this case." With this lofty assurance we
proceed.
The earth's orbital velocity will decrease to the same degree as Big Ben's little hand,Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. The acceleration observed
which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer.
Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives
mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)rT_observer = T_BB/gamma = T_BB/2
v_observer = 2pi r/sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r]
Does sqrt(GM(1 - v/c)/r] approximately equal sqrt(GM/r)/2?
It's possible that (1 - v/c) to first order in v/c is actually something
like 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v²/c² - ... = 1/(1 + 0.867) = 0.536, pretty
close, n'est-ce pas?
So we conclude that the transformation between frames must be
sun's attraction = -mv^2/(gamma)r
in order to solve the BBP. Is this a suitable result for you Gary Harnagel, my man?
Respectfully,
DolileoAll that's needed to refute the BBP is to show that the acceleration at r from the
observer's perspective is not GM/r, which Weber's equation does.
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance.
Dolocrates
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative velocity between the sun and the distant observer." -- Gary Harnagel, 10.03.2023
Thank you. And you are certain that you stand by this? No reservations? This is your final chance to renege.
DolocratesC'mon, Pat, you're getting a bit hyper here. I already pointed out that (1 - v/c) is APPROXIMATE.
I also pointed out that 1/(1 + v/c) expanded in a series has the first two terms 1 - v/c. I also
showed that 1/(1 + v/c) = 0.536, yet you're trying to con me into saying I.ll stand by 1 - v/c which
is only 0.133. Aren't you even a bit ashamed of such dishonesty, not to mention the fact that
your assertion that, by GR, the distant observer sees GM/r, the same as BB, from his perspective,
which is roundly refuted. You got nuttin', Pat. I told you that before, so you've wasted a lot of
time. But thanks anyway 'cause working this out was a lot of fun for me.
Gary Harnagel, we have come to that point in all Socratic dialectics where it's heads I win, tailsI think you have the pronouns reversed.
you lose.
That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of theI don't need to because you lost. The problem is, you ain't smart enough to realize it.
following options:
a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreasesNope. I even showed you that a GR approximation agrees within 7% of the SR prediction,
but you have the unmitigated gall to press forward with your asinine agenda,
Physics is local, Pat, but you keep trying to pretend that it;'s not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
Based on that principle alone, an observer trillions of miles away cannot possibly
affect what happens to the earth.
b) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction remainsNot by GR, not by SR.
unchanged
c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth norNot by SR.
the attraction of the sun
d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun changeThis one is correct, because physics is local. What an observer measures far away
cannot affect what he measures. Well, only insignificantly according to QM, and then
only tiny things, certainly not the earth :-).
Please select any one of these mutually exclusive pieces of cheese. In all four events,That is a delusional conclusion on your part. Socrates would never have done that.
the Socratic trap I've set for you will snap down on your tail in a most painful manner.
There is one more option. The Mitch McConnell option e) you freeze and do nothingThe Dolodelusional is like the Egyptians who lost a battle but went home and declared
as you realize that you have been caught in the blinding brilliance of the great Dolocrates!
they were victorious. Dolodelerious walks like an Eqyptian, dishonestly spreading propaganda.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=walk+like+an+egyptian+music+video#id=1&vid=f4aa594448073e26d382e57c18b245e4&action=clickYou choose d) Gary Harnagel. Wonderful. All physics is local, you say? Then do you deny Einstein's most famous of all gedankens, the Twins Paradox? Please reconcile the TP and BBP for this forum, Gary Harnagel.
This one is correct, because physics is local. What an observer measures far away
cannot affect what he measures. Well, only insignificantly according to QM, and then
only tiny things, certainly not the earth :-).
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 06:15:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:Maciej makes a good point, Gary Harnagel. Reality is not local. So what is it we are seeing when we look across space and time to watch the clock-work solar system spinning in the distance? A mere illusion brought about by velocity? The twins paradox
This one is correct, because physics is local. What an observer measures far awayWell, your moronic physics may be local, but the reality is not, poor halfbrain. Oh, yes, it can.
cannot affect what he measures. Well, only insignificantly according to QM, and then
only tiny things, certainly not the earth :-).
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:15:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
This one is correct, because physics is local. What an observer measures far away
cannot affect what he measures. Well, only insignificantly according to QM, and then
only tiny things, certainly not the earth :-).
The Dolodelusional is like the Egyptians who lost a battle but went home and declared
they were victorious. Dolodelerious walks like an Eqyptian, dishonestly spreading propaganda.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=walk+like+an+egyptian+music+video#id=1&vid=f4aa594448073e26d382e57c18b245e4&action=click
You choose d) Gary Harnagel. Wonderful. All physics is local, you say? Then do you deny Einstein's
most famous of all gedankens, the Twins Paradox?
Please reconcile the TP and BBP for this forum, Gary Harnagel.
By Jove! I've just come up with a Twins Paradox counter paradox. In the traveling twin's frame the
earth will have appeared to have orbited *twice as fast* as the orbital velocity required to maintain
a stable orbit. How do we know this? Because the stay at home twin is twice as old as the traveling
twin.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:29:19 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:15:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
This one is correct, because physics is local. What an observer measures far away
cannot affect what he measures. Well, only insignificantly according to QM, and then
only tiny things, certainly not the earth :-).
The Dolodelusional is like the Egyptians who lost a battle but went home and declared
they were victorious. Dolodelerious walks like an Eqyptian, dishonestly spreading propaganda.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=walk+like+an+egyptian+music+video#id=1&vid=f4aa594448073e26d382e57c18b245e4&action=click
You choose d) Gary Harnagel. Wonderful. All physics is local, you say? Then do you deny Einstein'sPat ol' boy, don't you realize that the TP IS LOCAL? The twins MEET back at earth and find that they're
most famous of all gedankens, the Twins Paradox?
not the same age.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:29:19 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:15:13 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
This one is correct, because physics is local. What an observer measures far away
cannot affect what he measures. Well, only insignificantly according to QM, and then
only tiny things, certainly not the earth :-).
The Dolodelusional is like the Egyptians who lost a battle but went home and declared
they were victorious. Dolodelerious walks like an Eqyptian, dishonestly spreading propaganda.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t&ei=UTF-8&p=walk+like+an+egyptian+music+video#id=1&vid=f4aa594448073e26d382e57c18b245e4&action=click
You choose d) Gary Harnagel. Wonderful. All physics is local, you say? Then do you deny Einstein'sPat ol' boy, don't you realize that the TP IS LOCAL? The twins MEET back at earth and find that they're
most famous of all gedankens, the Twins Paradox?
not the same age.
Please reconcile the TP and BBP for this forum, Gary Harnagel.The BBP is a different scenario, so there's little to compare. Did the observer start at earth and go
out umpty light years and then start back? No. Did the observer reach earth? No. If the observer
stopped anywhere along the path toward earth, what would he see for v_earth and a_earth? The
same as BB sees, of course, since they'd be both stationary in the same frame.
Furthermore, I showed you that GR was consistent for your BBP scenario, so you have done
nothing but spin your wheels and pretend you're making progress. You haven't destroyed GR.
Your gedanken is full of holes.
By Jove! I've just come up with a Twins Paradox counter paradox. In the traveling twin's frame theNope. The traveling twin only sees HALF the velocity, remember? You're conflating the velocity BB
earth will have appeared to have orbited *twice as fast* as the orbital velocity required to maintain
a stable orbit. How do we know this? Because the stay at home twin is twice as old as the traveling
twin.
sees with the attraction the traveling twin sees. (""sees" means after Doppler effect is removed)
You're doing a no-no:
"An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin, "Introduction
to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo
Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.
Please condescend to write out the solution to the Big Bend Paradox in your own words. Take your time and please try to be brief, terse, laconic, succinct, concise, short and to the point; in the same way the BBP is. Brevity is the soul of Science.
Den 05.10.2023 19:32, skrev patdolan:Sure Paul. Such a person has superior mental health, to the extent that said person has chosen to go beyond what he was taught and what he has read; choosing instead to keep his mental independence and apply simple logic to the theory of SR. Question
Please condescend to write out the solution to the Big Bend Paradox in your own words. Take your time and please try to be brief, terse, laconic, succinct, concise, short and to the point; in the same way the BBP is. Brevity is the soul of Science.Pat, I have one question for you.
I have asked you before, but you have not answered.
The question is:
What would you say about the mental health of a person who seriously believes that according to SR, an arbitrary observer moving somewhere
in the universe will make Big Ben run faster or slower?
Will you give a serious answer this time?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:20:17 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:for you: Does SR trump logic or is SR a servant of logic?
Den 05.10.2023 19:32, skrev patdolan:
Please condescend to write out the solution to the Big Bend Paradox in your own words. Take your time and please try to be brief, terse, laconic, succinct, concise, short and to the point; in the same way the BBP is. Brevity is the soul of Science.Pat, I have one question for you.
I have asked you before, but you have not answered.
The question is:
What would you say about the mental health of a person who seriously believes that according to SR, an arbitrary observer moving somewhere
in the universe will make Big Ben run faster or slower?
Will you give a serious answer this time?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/Sure Paul. Such a person has superior mental health, to the extent that said person has chosen to go beyond what he was taught and what he has read; choosing instead to keep his mental independence and apply simple logic to the theory of SR. Question
Paul, you are in denial right now. You have three more stages of grieving to traverse before you can begin to heal. Gary is in the same place. Next for you and Gary comes anger--directed at me and my ilk to begin with. Then at your teachers. Afteranger comes depression--depression over a lifetime wasted in relativity. You could have has so much more. Finally, acceptance. Some never make it to acceptance and swirl forever in depression.
Yours Truly,
Sigmund Dolued
PS--do I think observations affect the macro-objects observed? Of course not. I merely point out one of the many absurdities of doctrinaire SR. It's called the method of reductio ad absurdum and is older that Socrates.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Pat ol' boy, don't you realize that the TP IS LOCAL? The twins MEET back at earth and find that they're
not the same age.
The BBP is a different scenario, so there's little to compare. Did the observer start at earth and go
out umpty light years and then start back? No. Did the observer reach earth? No. If the observer
stopped anywhere along the path toward earth, what would he see for v_earth and a_earth? The
same as BB sees, of course, since they'd be both stationary in the same frame.
Furthermore, I showed you that GR was consistent for your BBP scenario, so you have done
nothing but spin your wheels and pretend you're making progress. You haven't destroyed GR.
Your gedanken is full of holes.
....
By Jove! I've just come up with a Twins Paradox counter paradox. In the traveling twin's frame theNope. The traveling twin only sees HALF the velocity, remember? You're conflating the velocity BB
earth will have appeared to have orbited *twice as fast* as the orbital velocity required to maintain
a stable orbit. How do we know this? Because the stay at home twin is twice as old as the traveling
twin.
sees with the attraction the traveling twin sees. (""sees" means after Doppler effect is removed)
You're doing a no-no:
"An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin, "Introduction
to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo
Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.
Gary Harnagel, the Socratic session is ended.
Please condescend to write out the solution to the Big Bend Paradox
in your own words. Take your time and please try to be brief, terse
, laconic, succinct, concise, short and to the point; in the same way the
BBP is. Brevity is the soul of Science.
"We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames"No, Galileo wouldn't say that.
He would know that there is no force acting outwards on the Moon.
That's why the Moon is accelerating and orbiting the Earth.
On October 4, skrev Paul B. Andersen:Agreed.
The moon orbits the sun, perturbed by the earth."We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames"No, Galileo wouldn't say that.
He would know that there is no force acting outwards on the Moon.
That's why the Moon is accelerating and orbiting the Earth.
--
Rich
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:16:26 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
On October 4, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
The moon orbits the sun, perturbed by the earth."We know that the centrifugal force on the earth must exactly balance the attraction of the sun in both frames"No, Galileo wouldn't say that.
He would know that there is no force acting outwards on the Moon.
That's why the Moon is accelerating and orbiting the Earth.
--Agreed.
Rich
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:32:20 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Pat ol' boy, don't you realize that the TP IS LOCAL? The twins MEET back at earth and find that they're
not the same age.
The BBP is a different scenario, so there's little to compare. Did the observer start at earth and go
out umpty light years and then start back? No. Did the observer reach earth? No. If the observer
stopped anywhere along the path toward earth, what would he see for v_earth and a_earth? The
same as BB sees, of course, since they'd be both stationary in the same frame.
Furthermore, I showed you that GR was consistent for your BBP scenario, so you have done
nothing but spin your wheels and pretend you're making progress. You haven't destroyed GR.
Your gedanken is full of holes.
....
By Jove! I've just come up with a Twins Paradox counter paradox. In the traveling twin's frame theNope. The traveling twin only sees HALF the velocity, remember? You're conflating the velocity BB
earth will have appeared to have orbited *twice as fast* as the orbital velocity required to maintain
a stable orbit. How do we know this? Because the stay at home twin is twice as old as the traveling
twin.
sees with the attraction the traveling twin sees. (""sees" means after Doppler effect is removed)
You're doing a no-no:
"An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin, "Introduction
to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics-- one would immediately meet contradictions" -- E. Recami
"Classical Tachyons and Possible Applications," Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento, 9:6 (1986), p. 66.
Gary Harnagel, the Socratic session is ended.Good. Fake Socrates lost his pants. Goodbye
Please condescend to write out the solution to the Big Bend ParadoxNope. I've spent too much time on this nonsense already. It's back to tachyons for me.
in your own words. Take your time and please try to be brief, terse
, laconic, succinct, concise, short and to the point; in the same way the
BBP is. Brevity is the soul of Science.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:54:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:You have repeated eurohenry's fatal mistake with this line of yours
You can never go back to tachyons they way you once knew them, Gary Harnagel,
now that you have tasted the BBP. Your work with the BBP has possessed you and
terrorized you--that is obvious--obvious from your refusal to simply and succinctly
sum up your case against the BBP.
You are wrong, BBurP-breath. Simply and succinctly summing up the case against
BBurP is childishly simple. BBurP asserts that from the perspective of the distant
observer, (1) the motion of the earth around the sun takes twice as long due to time
dilation, hence the fictitious centrifugal acceleration, a = v'^2/R, will be reduced because
v' = 2 pi R/T', where T' = 2T, BUT (2) the centripetal acceleration, a', is unchanged from
a = GM/r.
Weber's equation demonstrates that (2) is a false assumption. There is no need to
go any further because the BBP argument is invalid. Pat, your insistence on pressing
any further on this may be indicative of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Please
fight it or get help if you can't.
Put down those damned tachyons
Ooh, that hurts!! Put up your dukes. Marquess of Queensberry rules . To the death!
Your demise has become the most important thing in my life!
(Not really, you are such a likable old geezer even with your OCD)
You can never go back to tachyons they way you once knew them, Gary Harnagel, now that you have tasted the BBP. Your work with the BBP has possessed you and
terrorized you--that is obvious--obvious from your refusal to simply and succinctly
sum up your case against the BBP.
Put down those damned tachyons
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:53:31 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:16:26 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
The moon orbits the sun, perturbed by the earth.
--
Rich
Agreed.
Why would the Earth take the Moon around the Sun?
Sun's curve would meet the Moon's motion directly
but why not curving it directly?
SR is a consistent theory.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:20:17 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Pat, I have one question for you.
I have asked you before, but you have not answered.
The question is:
What would you say about the mental health of a person who seriously
believes that according to SR, an arbitrary observer moving somewhere
in the universe will make Big Ben run faster or slower?
Will you give a serious answer this time?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Sure Paul. Such a person has superior mental health, to the extent that said person has chosen to go beyond what he was taught and what he has read; choosing instead to keep his mental independence and apply simple logic to the theory of SR.
Question for you: Does SR trump logic or is SR a servant of logic?
On 10/5/2023 9:28 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:53:31?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:16:26?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
The moon orbits the sun, perturbed by the earth.
--
Rich
Agreed.
Why would the Earth take the Moon around the Sun?
It doesn't, Roy. The moon essentially orbits the sun directly with that
pesky earth messing up its orbit. Look at a plot of the moon's path
around the sun (easily found via Google) and you'll see that at no point
does the moon curve away from the sun.
Sun's curve would meet the Moon's motion directly
but why not curving it directly?
It does, Roy.
I know it is nearly always wise to disagree with anything Dolan agrees
with, but this is the exception which proves the rule, I guess.
Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/5/2023 9:28 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:53:31?PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:16:26?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
The moon orbits the sun, perturbed by the earth.
--
Rich
Agreed.
Why would the Earth take the Moon around the Sun?
It doesn't, Roy. The moon essentially orbits the sun directly with that pesky earth messing up its orbit. Look at a plot of the moon's path
around the sun (easily found via Google) and you'll see that at no point does the moon curve away from the sun.
Sun's curve would meet the Moon's motion directly
but why not curving it directly?
It does, Roy.
I know it is nearly always wise to disagree with anything Dolan agrees with, but this is the exception which proves the rule, I guess.He is wrong of course. Both the sun and the moon orbit the earth.
Everything is relative...
Fortunately, inquisition knew all the time and saved
the honour of the human knowledge.
Le 06/10/2023 11:10, Maciej Wozniak a crit :
Fortunately, inquisition knew all the time and saved
the honour of the human knowledge.
'nuf said :-)
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:24:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:54:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
You can never go back to tachyons they way you once knew them, Gary Harnagel,
now that you have tasted the BBP. Your work with the BBP has possessed you and
terrorized you--that is obvious--obvious from your refusal to simply and succinctly
sum up your case against the BBP.
You are wrong, BBurP-breath. Simply and succinctly summing up the case against
BBurP is childishly simple. BBurP asserts that from the perspective of the distant
observer, (1) the motion of the earth around the sun takes twice as long due to time
dilation, hence the fictitious centrifugal acceleration, a = v'^2/R, will be reduced because
v' = 2 pi R/T', where T' = 2T, BUT (2) the centripetal acceleration, a', is unchanged from
a = GM/r.
Weber's equation demonstrates that (2) is a false assumption. There is no need to
go any further because the BBP argument is invalid. Pat, your insistence on pressing
any further on this may be indicative of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Please
fight it or get help if you can't.
Put down those damned tachyons
Ooh, that hurts!! Put up your dukes. Marquess of Queensberry rules . To the death!
Your demise has become the most important thing in my life!
(Not really, you are such a likable old geezer even with your OCD)
You have repeated eurohenry's fatal mistake with this line of yours
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer."
I shall now administer the coup de grace as the entire forum looks on...
If Weber's approximation is right then General Relativity and Albert Einstein are wrong.
Because when u = c, as is the case for photons, according to the equation the sun's
acceleration is zero at all distances. This precludes the bending of any beam of starlight
during a solar eclipse.
So Einstein and the Schwarzschild metric are a pure fantasy
according to Weber and Gary Harnagel. And all that solar eclipse data, from Eddington
to Bruns, is garbage By The Way
With warmest regards and deepest sympathy,
Red Hot Dolopepper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfyjwChuNU
Den 05.10.2023 20:34, skrev patdolan:
SR is a consistent theory.
Non.
Dans sa forme actuelle, pas vraiment.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:49:27 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:24:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:54:51 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
You can never go back to tachyons they way you once knew them, Gary Harnagel,
now that you have tasted the BBP. Your work with the BBP has possessed you and
terrorized you--that is obvious--obvious from your refusal to simply and succinctly
sum up your case against the BBP.
You are wrong, BBurP-breath. Simply and succinctly summing up the case against
BBurP is childishly simple. BBurP asserts that from the perspective of the distant
observer, (1) the motion of the earth around the sun takes twice as long due to time
dilation, hence the fictitious centrifugal acceleration, a = v'^2/R, will be reduced because
v' = 2 pi R/T', where T' = 2T, BUT (2) the centripetal acceleration, a', is unchanged from
a = GM/r.
Weber's equation demonstrates that (2) is a false assumption. There is no need to
go any further because the BBP argument is invalid. Pat, your insistence on pressing
any further on this may be indicative of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Please
fight it or get help if you can't.
Put down those damned tachyons
Ooh, that hurts!! Put up your dukes. Marquess of Queensberry rules . To the death!
Your demise has become the most important thing in my life!
(Not really, you are such a likable old geezer even with your OCD)
You have repeated eurohenry's fatal mistake with this line of yours
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer."
I shall now administer the coup de grace as the entire forum looks on...
If Weber's approximation is right then General Relativity and Albert Einstein are wrong.Pat, Pat, Pat, you are such an endearing country bumpkin. In Weber's equation, u refers
Because when u = c, as is the case for photons, according to the equation the sun's
acceleration is zero at all distances. This precludes the bending of any beam of starlight
during a solar eclipse.
to the velocity between the observer (made up of protons, neutrons and electrons) and
Big Ben (also made up of protons, neutrons and electrons). IOW, normal matter, not
photons. Normal matter cannot reach c, so your flimsy argument tumbles onto the
scrapheap of failed excuses you bring up time after time after time for your obsession.
So Einstein and the Schwarzschild metric are a pure fantasy
according to Weber and Gary Harnagel. And all that solar eclipse data, from Eddington
to Bruns, is garbage By The Way
With warmest regards and deepest sympathy,
Red Hot Dolopepper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfyjwChuNUDenial of experimental evidence is denial of reality. Perhaps you should see a shrink
(not one that also has OCD :-)
Condolences,
Gary
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:49:27 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
You have repeated eurohenry's fatal mistake with this line of yours
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer."
I shall now administer the coup de grace as the entire forum looks on...
If Weber's approximation is right then General Relativity and Albert Einstein are wrong.
Because when u = c, as is the case for photons, according to the equation the sun's
acceleration is zero at all distances. This precludes the bending of any beam of starlight
during a solar eclipse.
Pat, Pat, Pat, you are such an endearing country bumpkin. In Weber's equation, u refers
to the velocity between the observer (made up of protons, neutrons and electrons) and
Big Ben (also made up of protons, neutrons and electrons). IOW, normal matter, not
photons. Normal matter cannot reach c, so your flimsy argument tumbles onto the
scrapheap of failed excuses you bring up time after time after time for your obsession.
So Einstein and the Schwarzschild metric are a pure fantasy
according to Weber and Gary Harnagel. And all that solar eclipse data, from Eddington
to Bruns, is garbage By The Way
With warmest regards and deepest sympathy,
Red Hot Dolopepper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfyjwChuNUDenial of experimental evidence is denial of reality. Perhaps you should see a shrink
(not one that also has OCD :-)
Condolences,
Gary
So the 600"/century advance of the perihelion of the very substantial Mercury and the
1.75 arcsec bending of very insubstantial starlight at the lim of the sun are governed by
two totally different principles; two different versions of the Einstein field equations?
Pray tell, Gary Harnagel, what are those two principles? Those two versions of the EFEs?
Please enlighten this forum.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:04:15 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 6:17:31 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:49:27 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
You have repeated eurohenry's fatal mistake with this line of yours
"The acceleration observed from S' due to the sun will decrease by approximately (1 - u/c), where u is the relative
velocity between the sun and the distant observer."
I shall now administer the coup de grace as the entire forum looks on...
If Weber's approximation is right then General Relativity and Albert Einstein are wrong.
Because when u = c, as is the case for photons, according to the equation the sun's
acceleration is zero at all distances. This precludes the bending of any beam of starlight
during a solar eclipse.
Pat, Pat, Pat, you are such an endearing country bumpkin. In Weber's equation, u refers
to the velocity between the observer (made up of protons, neutrons and electrons) and
Big Ben (also made up of protons, neutrons and electrons). IOW, normal matter, not
photons. Normal matter cannot reach c, so your flimsy argument tumbles onto the
scrapheap of failed excuses you bring up time after time after time for your obsession.
So Einstein and the Schwarzschild metric are a pure fantasy
according to Weber and Gary Harnagel. And all that solar eclipse data, from Eddington
to Bruns, is garbage By The Way
With warmest regards and deepest sympathy,
Red Hot Dolopepper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfyjwChuNUDenial of experimental evidence is denial of reality. Perhaps you should see a shrink
(not one that also has OCD :-)
Condolences,
Gary
So the 600"/century advance of the perihelion of the very substantial Mercury and thePat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat Pat! Both bradyons and luxons are encompassed by the same
1.75 arcsec bending of very insubstantial starlight at the lim of the sun are governed by
two totally different principles; two different versions of the Einstein field equations?
equations.
Pray tell, Gary Harnagel, what are those two principles? Those two versions of the EFEs?Only trolls and ignoramuses are unenlightened about this. Both are also encompassed in
Please enlighten this forum.
special relativity by the relativistic energy equation: E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, yet you get
different energy equations depending on the value of m.
m > 0: E = gamma*mc^2
m = 0: E = pc
It's just different values of a parameter that you plug into the equation.
Pat, you still git nuttin', zero, nada. And you're OCD is getting very overburdening. Pleas stop.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:44:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:04:15 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
So the 600"/century advance of the perihelion of the very substantial Mercury and the
1.75 arcsec bending of very insubstantial starlight at the lim of the sun are governed by
two totally different principles; two different versions of the Einstein field equations?
Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat Pat! Both bradyons and luxons are encompassed by the same
equations.
Then why aren't luxons and bradyons both encompassed by a = k(1 - u/c)??
Pray tell, Gary Harnagel, what are those two principles? Those two versions
of the EFEs? Please enlighten this forum.
Only trolls and ignoramuses are unenlightened about this. Both are also encompassed in special relativity by the relativistic energy equation:
E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, yet you get different energy equations depending
on the value of m.
m > 0: E = gamma*mc^2
m = 0: E = pc
It's just different values of a parameter that you plug into the equation.
Pat, you still git nuttin', zero, nada. And you're OCD is getting very over-burdening. Pleas stop.
All interesting, some would say controversial, AND IRRELEVANT.
You have given this forum the approximate solution for the decrease in
the solar acceleration of neighboring mass vs. relative velocity. Now
please give the approximate solution for the decrease in the solar acceleration of starlight. So we can compare the two.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:57:10 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:44:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:04:15 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
So the 600"/century advance of the perihelion of the very substantial Mercury and the
1.75 arcsec bending of very insubstantial starlight at the lim of the sun are governed by
two totally different principles; two different versions of the Einstein field equations?
Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat Pat! Both bradyons and luxons are encompassed by the same
equations.
Then why aren't luxons and bradyons both encompassed by a = k(1 - u/c)??
The same Einstein field equations from which a = k(1 - u/c) is derive,
E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4 equation from which E = gamma*mc^2 and m = 0: E = pc are derived.
Pray tell, Gary Harnagel, what are those two principles? Those two versions
of the EFEs? Please enlighten this forum.
Only trolls and ignoramuses are unenlightened about this. Both are also encompassed in special relativity by the relativistic energy equation: E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, yet you get different energy equations depending on the value of m.
m > 0: E = gamma*mc^2
m = 0: E = pc
It's just different values of a parameter that you plug into the equation.
Pat, you still git nuttin', zero, nada. And you're OCD is getting very over-burdening. Pleas stop.
All interesting, some would say controversial, AND IRRELEVANT.No, Pat, it was a DIRECT answer to your misguided question. You are now very, very wearying.
You have given this forum the approximate solution for the decrease inSorry, Pat ol' troll, but that's just absurd. Your original scenario was from
the solar acceleration of neighboring mass vs. relative velocity. Now please give the approximate solution for the decrease in the solar acceleration of starlight. So we can compare the two.
the perspective of an OBSERVER. An observer is composed of bradyons
at rest in some inertial frame. Luxons (photons) are NEVER at rest in any IF.
Pat, are you learning ANYTHING from this dialog?
If invariant spacetime curvature can be shown to actually be
covariant, then you and Weber deserve the very next Nobel.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:09:44 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:57:10 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
Then why aren't luxons and bradyons both encompassed by a = k(1 - u/c)??
This sentence of yours is breaking news:
The same Einstein field equations from which a = k(1 - u/c) is derived,
If invariant spacetime curvature can be shown to actually be covariant, then you and Weber deserve the very next Nobel. Please limb out that derivation for this forum, Gary Harnagel.
the same
E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4 equation from which E = gamma*mc^2 and m = 0: E = pc are derived.
....
All interesting, some would say controversial, AND IRRELEVANT.
No, Pat, it was a DIRECT answer to your misguided question. You are now very, very wearying.
You have given this forum the approximate solution for the decrease in the solar acceleration of neighboring mass vs. relative velocity. Now please give the approximate solution for the decrease in the solar acceleration of starlight. So we can compare the two.
Sorry, Pat ol' troll, but that's just absurd. Your original scenario was from
the perspective of an OBSERVER. An observer is composed of bradyons
at rest in some inertial frame. Luxons (photons) are NEVER at rest in any IF.
Pat, are you learning ANYTHING from this dialog?
On 10/6/2023 10:51 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Non.
Dans sa forme actuelle, pas vraiment.
Why are you mentioning that your hovercraft is full of eels?
On 10/6/23 3:25 PM, patdolan wrote:
If invariant spacetime curvature can be shown to actually beYou just keep displaying your profound ignorance of very basic physics
covariant, then you and Weber deserve the very next Nobel.
and math.
On 10/6/23 3:25 PM, patdolan wrote:Let me get this straight, Tom Roberts. Are you saying that a = k(1-u/c) is a fair approximation of solar acceleration in the vicinity of the sun vs. the relative velocity of a distant observer in the BBP?
If invariant spacetime curvature can be shown to actually beYou just keep displaying your profound ignorance of very basic physics
covariant, then you and Weber deserve the very next Nobel.
and math.
Spacetime curvature is expressed by the Riemann curvature tensor, which
like all tensors is completely independent of coordinates -- that makes
them invariant under changes of coordinates. In this context,
"covariant" means that the components of a tensor "co-vary" with changes
of coordinates such that the underlying tensor is invariant.
So in your loosey-goosey wording, spacetime curvature is INHERENTLY covariant; this is blatantly obvious to anyone who understands tensors,
and is not worthy of any prize.
This also means that your "Big Ben Paradox" is merely a misunderstanding
on YOUR part, with no possibility of "refuting" anything except your personal fantasies.
Tom Roberts
Den 06.10.2023 19:04, skrev patdolan:
; So the 600"/century advance of the perihelion of the verysubstantial Mercury and the 1.75 arcsec bending of very insubstantial starlight at the limb of the sun are governed by two totally different principles;two different versions of the Einstein field equations?
Perihelion advance of Mercury:
------------------------------
If Mercury and the Sun were the only two bodies in the universe,
GR predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury would be 42.98"/century. This advance is caused by "Einstein field equations".
But both GR and NM predicts that the perihelion
advance of Mercury caused by the pull from the other
bodies (planets) in the solar system is 532.33"/century.
This advance is caused by "totally different principles".
So NM predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury should be
532.33"/century, while GR predicts 575.31"/centrury.
I don't have to tell you which of them is in
accordance with observations.
Gravitational deflection of light by the Sun --------------------------------------------
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
See equation (5).
It shows the deflection θ observed from the Earth
when the angle Sun-Earth is φ.
In with the simulation:
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
you can see θ for different values of φ.
A few examples are shown below:
φ θ-NM θ-GR
0.2664⁰ 0.876078" 1.752156" gracing Sun
5⁰ 0.046644" 0.093288"
10⁰ 0.023278" 0.046555"
20⁰ 0.011550" 0.023099"
30⁰ 0.007600" 0.015201"
40⁰ 0.005595" 0.011191"
60⁰ 0.003527" 0.007055"
90⁰ 0.002037" 0.004073"
Observed deflection of EM-radiation:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
The predictions of GR are confirmed with very
good precision for all φ up to 90⁰.
I am not going to discuss this any further.
(Unless I get sensible questions, which are not likely
to come from Pat Dolan.)
Den 06.10.2023 19:04, skrev patdolan:Thank you for this data, Paul. I now apply to your data to the Weber, Harnagel, Roberts approximation [ a = (1 - u/v) ] for the BBP attenuation of spacetime curvature in the vicinity of a gravitating body vs. relative velocity.
So the 600"/century advance of the perihelion of the verysubstantial Mercury and the 1.75 arcsec bending of very insubstantial starlight at the limb of the sun are governed by two totally different principles;two different versions of the Einstein field equations?
Perihelion advance of Mercury:
------------------------------
If Mercury and the Sun were the only two bodies in the universe,
GR predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury would be 42.98"/century. This advance is caused by "Einstein field equations".
See:
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
But both GR and NM predicts that the perihelion
advance of Mercury caused by the pull from the other
bodies (planets) in the solar system is 532.33"/century.
This advance is caused by "totally different principles".
So NM predicts that the perihelion advance of Mercury should be 532.33"/century, while GR predicts 575.31"/centrury.
I don't have to tell you which of them is in
accordance with observations.
Gravitational deflection of light by the Sun --------------------------------------------
See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
See equation (5).
It shows the deflection θ observed from the Earth
when the angle Sun-Earth is φ.
In with the simulation:
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
you can see θ for different values of φ.
A few examples are shown below:
φ θ-NM θ-GR
0.2664⁰ 0.876078" 1.752156" gracing Sun
5⁰ 0.046644" 0.093288"
10⁰ 0.023278" 0.046555"
20⁰ 0.011550" 0.023099"
30⁰ 0.007600" 0.015201"
40⁰ 0.005595" 0.011191"
60⁰ 0.003527" 0.007055"
90⁰ 0.002037" 0.004073"
Observed deflection of EM-radiation:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
The predictions of GR are confirmed with very
good precision for all φ up to 90⁰.
I am not going to discuss this any further.
(Unless I get sensible questions, which are not likely
to come from Pat Dolan.)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
A distant observer is traveling at 0.9 relative to the solar system...
Interpretation#1: The [solar] clock is approaching the observer
with the speed 0.9c. The observer will measure one orbit
of the earth to last a time tau on his wristwatch:
tau = [(1-v)/(1+v)] year = 0.052632 year
Interpretation #3: The observer is moving at 0.9c in the solar frame.
The proper time of the observer’s wristwatch will advance a time tau
while one year passes as measured in the solar frame.
tau = sqrt(1-v^2) year = 0.43588989 year
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 5:58:02 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Kook fight!
A distant observer is traveling at 0.9 relative to the solar system...
Interpretation#1: The [solar] clock is approaching the observer
with the speed 0.9c. The observer will measure one orbit
of the earth to last a time tau on his wristwatch:
tau = [(1-v)/(1+v)] year = 0.052632 year
Huh? It should be the square root of that (and reciprocal for receding - direction wasn't specified).
Interpretation #3: The observer is moving at 0.9c in the solar frame.
The proper time of the observer’s wristwatch will advance a time tau while one year passes as measured in the solar frame.
tau = sqrt(1-v^2) year = 0.43588989 year
Huh? In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, the observer has an elapsed time of one year in 2.29 years of coordinate time. Each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:35:37 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:gadanken the ended relativity once and for all. Relativity lived by the gedanken and it has just been killed by the gedanken.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 6:39:28 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
On September 22, Richard Hertz wrote:
I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answersIf Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
and denigrating those who disagree.
oh the irony -
--It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates
Rich
I don't believe you are on the record yet Gary, regarding the BBP. What would Socratease make of that do you think?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradoxI hadn't even considered it. Interesting ... The first problem I see is it involves general relativity, but we can
change the problem and assume Big Ben has an electrical charge is orbiting an opposite charge (this will
change the result somewhat). The second problem is that BB isn't inertial. IIRC, it was Robert Leighton who
solved that problem in the case of an electron orbiting a nucleus by taking small steps and iterating, not
something I'd want to do. The third problem is that the admonition of David Morin is violated:
""An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant
yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no." -- David Morin, Introduction
to Classical Mechanics, p. 522.
So, staying in the frame where the observer is stationary, BB is rushing toward theProfessor Paul B. Anderson has already determined that the spacetime in which the paradox takes place is flat for all concerned, observer and earthlings. See his in-depth analysis here https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf
observer at 0.867c AND traveling in a corkscrew path. Another complication. I'm
certainly not willing to go to all the effort to solve THAT problem unless it was
related to something I have a personal interest. My personal interests include
tachyons -- traveling in a straight line :-)
With that out of the way we consider and admonish your acedia regarding this all-important paradox. Hang your tachyons on the nearest tack and start considering what will most likely be cited by future physicists and historians of physics as the
A distant observer is traveling at 0.9 relative to the solar system... >>Interpretation#1: The [solar] clock is approaching the observer
with the speed 0.9c. The observer will measure one orbit
of the earth to last a time tau on his wristwatch:
tau = [(1-v)/(1+v)] year = 0.052632 year
Huh? It should be the square root of that
You are obviously right.
(and reciprocal for receding - direction wasn't specified).Interpretation #1 is that that the Sun is approaching.
Read the above again, carefully, and you will see that I amInterpretation #3: The observer is moving at 0.9c in the solar frame.
The proper time of the observer’s wristwatch will advance a time tau
while one year passes as measured in the solar frame.
tau = sqrt(1-v^2) year = 0.43588989 year
saying exactly the same as you say below.
Huh? In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, the observer has an elapsed time of one year in 2.29 years of coordinate time. Each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest.
Observer's clock advances 0.43588989 year in one year of
coordinate time, so observer's clock advances 1 year in
2.29416 years of coordinate time.
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 5:58:02 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
A distant observer is traveling at 0.9 relative to the solar system...
Interpretation#1: The [solar] clock is approaching the observer
with the speed 0.9c. The observer will measure one orbit
of the earth to last a time tau on his wristwatch:
tau = [(1-v)/(1+v)] year = 0.052632 year
Huh? It should be the square root of that
(and reciprocal for receding - direction wasn't specified).
Interpretation #3: The observer is moving at 0.9c in the solar frame.
The proper time of the observer’s wristwatch will advance a time tau
while one year passes as measured in the solar frame.
tau = sqrt(1-v^2) year = 0.43588989 year
Huh? In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, the observer has an elapsed time of one year in 2.29 years of coordinate time. Each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest.
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:would be more natural for Interp 3 to be phrased reciprocally as [one year of proper time for the observer is 2.29 years of the sun's inertial coordinate system]. Scaling the latter down to make it asymmetrical seems to suggest some asymmetry not
A distant observer is traveling at 0.9 relative to the solar system... >>Interpretation#1: The [solar] clock is approaching the observer
with the speed 0.9c. The observer will measure one orbit
of the earth to last a time tau on his wristwatch:
tau = [(1-v)/(1+v)] year = 0.052632 year
Huh? It should be the square root of that
You are obviously right.
Yes, so when enumerating the possible "interpretations", there is an equally viable one for the receding case that could be mentioned for completeness, with the reciprocal Doppler factor.(and reciprocal for receding - direction wasn't specified).Interpretation #1 is that that the Sun is approaching.
Read the above again, carefully, and you will see that I amInterpretation #3: The observer is moving at 0.9c in the solar frame. >> The proper time of the observer’s wristwatch will advance a time tau >> while one year passes as measured in the solar frame.
tau = sqrt(1-v^2) year = 0.43588989 year
saying exactly the same as you say below.
Huh? In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, the observer has an elapsed time of one year in 2.29 years of coordinate time. Each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest.
Observer's clock advances 0.43588989 year in one year ofYes, it's just odd to present the perfectly reciprocal relations of Interpretations 2 and 3 in such an asymmetrical way. Interp 2 said [one year of proper time for the sun is elapsed in 2.29 years of the observer's inertial coordinate system], so it
coordinate time, so observer's clock advances 1 year in
2.29416 years of coordinate time.
You have fallen silent, Gary Harnagel.
On 2023-10-08 03:55:13 +0000, patdolan peplied to Bill:Mikko, Gary Harnagel has not responded since yetereday when he asked me if I was learning anything. Yes, I know I responded to Legion; it was an attempt to lure Legion out into the quicksand again. Gary has been reading every word of these posts from
You have fallen silent, Gary Harnagel.When you respond to Gary Harnagel, you should reply to Gary Harnagel,
not to Bill.
Gary Harhagel did not fall silent but responded to you. If you didn't receive his last message you shold respond again to the least one you
have received.
Mikko
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:02 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-10-08 03:55:13 +0000, patdolan peplied to Bill:
You have fallen silent, Gary Harnagel.When you respond to Gary Harnagel, you should reply to Gary Harnagel,>
not to Bill.>> Gary Harhagel did not fall silent but responded to you.
If you didn't> receive his last message you shold respond again to the
least one you> have received.>> Mikko
Mikko, Gary Harnagel has not responded since yetereday when he asked
me if I was learning anything.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:02 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-10-08 03:55:13 +0000, patdolan peplied to Bill:
You have fallen silent, Gary Harnagel.
When you respond to Gary Harnagel, you should reply to Gary Harnagel,
not to Bill.
Gary Harhagel did not fall silent but responded to you. If you didn't receive his last message you shold respond again to the least one you
have received.
Mikko
Mikko, Gary Harnagel has not responded since yetereday when he asked
me if I was learning anything.
Yes, I know I responded to Legion; it was an attempt to lure Legion out into the quicksand again. Gary has been reading every word of these posts from every poster. He saw my message. And still choses silence.
Gary has most definitely been Big Ben-ed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNlugNFwLII
On 2023-10-08 13:02:55 +0000, patdolan said:Mikko, I would like to invite you to respond in the manner that Gary might have responded. Or respond after your own fashion. What do you say?
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:02 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-10-08 03:55:13 +0000, patdolan peplied to Bill:
You have fallen silent, Gary Harnagel.When you respond to Gary Harnagel, you should reply to Gary Harnagel,>
not to Bill.>> Gary Harhagel did not fall silent but responded to you.
If you didn't> receive his last message you shold respond again to the
least one you> have received.>> Mikko
Mikko, Gary Harnagel has not responded since yetereday when he asked"Since yesterday" is too soon so mean anything. If he doesn't answer in
me if I was learning anything.
two or three days after your answer to his questions then you may ask whether he missed your answer.
Mikko
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: Den 07.10.2023 18:26, skrev Bill:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 5:58:02 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
No I didn't write this today!
Where did you find it?
A distant observer is traveling at 0.9 relative to the solar system... >>>>Interpretation#1: The [solar] clock is approaching the observer
with the speed 0.9c. The observer will measure one orbit
of the earth to last a time tau on his wristwatch:
tau = [(1-v)/(1+v)] year = 0.052632 year
Huh? It should be the square root of that
You are obviously right.
(and reciprocal for receding - direction wasn't specified).Interpretation #1 is that that the Sun is approaching.
Yes, so when enumerating the possible "interpretations", there is an equally viable one for the receding case that could be mentioned for completeness, with the reciprocal Doppler factor.
Read the above again, carefully, and you will see that I amInterpretation #3: The observer is moving at 0.9c in the solar frame.
The proper time of the observer’s wristwatch will advance a time tau >>>> while one year passes as measured in the solar frame.
tau = sqrt(1-v^2) year = 0.43588989 year
saying exactly the same as you say below.
Huh? In terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, the observer has an elapsed time of one year in 2.29 years of coordinate time. Each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest.
Observer's clock advances 0.43588989 year in one year of
coordinate time, so observer's clock advances 1 year in
2.29416 years of coordinate time.
Yes, it's just odd to present the perfectly reciprocal relations of Interpretations 2 and 3 in such an asymmetrical way.
Interp 2 said [one year of proper time for the sun is elapsed in 2.29 years of the observer's inertial coordinate system], so it would be more natural for Interp 3 to be phrased reciprocally as [one year of proper time for the observer is 2.29 years ofthe sun's inertial coordinate system]. Scaling the latter down to make it asymmetrical seems to suggest some asymmetry not inherent in the phenomena (to borrow a phrase).
It's just odd to present the perfectly reciprocal relations ... in
such an asymmetrical way.
The OP's question was: "How much time does the observer measure
on his/her wristwatch for the earth to complete 2pi radians on the aforementioned path?” I have answered the question.
But the most interesting part of my paper is:
"Answer when the curvature of space-time is considered."
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:relativity) pertains to how the gravitational effect is modeled. In the relevant weak field limit on the flat background we can accurately model the gravitational interaction as a Lorentz invariant force, and trivially account for the force balance in
It's just odd to present the perfectly reciprocal relations ... in
such an asymmetrical way.
The OP's question was: "How much time does the observer measure
on his/her wristwatch for the earth to complete 2pi radians on the aforementioned path?” I have answered the question.
Fair enough.
But the most interesting part of my paper is:The fact that the time dilation between the different systems of isotropic coordinates moving relatively at near light speed dwarfs the gravitational time dilation effect is not really at issue. The significance of the two contexts (special and general
"Answer when the curvature of space-time is considered."
Alternatively, in the context of general relativity, i.e., "when the curvature of space-time is considered", rather than discussing the "force of gravity", we note that the earth's trajectory is a helical geodesic path through spacetime, whose metricnear the sun satisfies the field equations, and it is easily shown that (1) the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, (2) the components of the intrinsic (Gaussian) curvature are properly covariant between the two systems of coordinates, (3)
at gamma = 2, the sun is only 1/2 its thickness in the direction of
the distant observer's direction of travel.
While the sun's cross-section remains unchanged. But if the
intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it
doesn't) that change would be to further intensify the gravitation
felt by the earth because of the squashing together of more of the
sun's mass along the ecliptic of the sun.
Instead of solving the BBP, [...]
invariant force, and trivially account for the force balance in terms of both systems of coordinates as a simple exercise in special relativity. Same as for a mass-spring system or flywheel of a clock mechanism or any other physical phenomenon.The significance of the two contexts (special and general relativity) pertains to how the gravitational effect is modeled. In the relevant weak field limit on the flat background we can accurately model the gravitational interaction as a Lorentz
near the sun satisfies the field equations, and it is easily shown that (1) the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, (2) the components of the intrinsic (Gaussian) curvature are properly covariant between the two systems of coordinates, (3)Alternatively, in the context of general relativity, i.e., "when the curvature of space-time is considered", rather than discussing the "force of gravity", we note that the earth's trajectory is a helical geodesic path through spacetime, whose metric
the intrinsic curvature is going to covary with the distant observer's relative velocity...
If the intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it doesn't)...
that change would be to further intensify the gravitation felt by the earth...
at gamma = 2, the sun is only 1/2 its thickness in the direction of
the distant observer's direction of travel.
*** the SUN isn't "1/2 its thickness", but MEASUREMENTS by the distant observer are. ***
While the sun's cross-section remains unchanged. But if the
intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it
doesn't) that change would be to further intensify the gravitation
felt by the earth because of the squashing together of more of the
sun's mass along the ecliptic of the sun.
NONSENSE! You merely repeat your basic error: OBSERVATIONS by the
distant observer do not affect the sun, earth, or solar system in any
way. This OUGHT to be obvious.
If a satellite orbits the sun in a circular orbit, and the system
travels along the x axis relative to a stationary observer, the orbit
will appear to distort into an ellipse. The observer may infer that
the motion has affected the sun's gravity.
OnOctober 8, Tom Roberts wrote:
at gamma = 2, the sun is only 1/2 its thickness in the direction of
the distant observer's direction of travel.
*** the SUN isn't "1/2 its thickness", but MEASUREMENTS by the distant observer are. ***
While the sun's cross-section remains unchanged. But if the
intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it
doesn't) that change would be to further intensify the gravitation
felt by the earth because of the squashing together of more of the
sun's mass along the ecliptic of the sun.
NONSENSE! You merely repeat your basic error: OBSERVATIONS by theIf a satellite orbits the sun in a circular orbit, and the system travels along the x axis relative to a stationary observer, the orbit will appear
distant observer do not affect the sun, earth, or solar system in any
way. This OUGHT to be obvious.
to distort into an ellipse. The observer may infer that the motion has affected the sun's gravity.
--RichD, as to the Lorentz contraction along the BBP's x-axis, I feign no hypothesis. That is why I chose the z-axis--the sun's axis of rotation--on which to construct the BBP. That way, orbital distortions play no part in the paradox. Now watch and
Rich
On 10/8/23 5:41 PM, patdolan wrote:
at gamma = 2, the sun is only 1/2 its thickness in the direction of... as measured by the distant observer using standard inertial
the distant observer's direction of travel.
coordinates in which they are at rest. The sun itself, of course, is completely unaffected.
You keep confusing yourself by your ambiguous wording, which is so poor
that it is tantamount to being wrong.
*** the SUN isn't "1/2 its thickness", but MEASUREMENTS by the distant observer are. ***
While the sun's cross-section remains unchanged. But if theNONSENSE! You merely repeat your basic error: OBSERVATIONS by the
intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it doesn't) that change would be to further intensify the gravitation
felt by the earth because of the squashing together of more of the
sun's mass along the ecliptic of the sun.
distant observer do not affect the sun, earth, or solar system in any
way. This OUGHT to be obvious.
Instead of solving the BBP, [...]
There is no "BBP", there are only your personal fantasies and misunderstandings.
Tom Roberts
invariant force, and trivially account for the force balance in terms of both systems of coordinates as a simple exercise in special relativity. Same as for a mass-spring system or flywheel of a clock mechanism or any other physical phenomenon.The significance of the two contexts (special and general relativity) pertains to how the gravitational effect is modeled. In the relevant weak field limit on the flat background we can accurately model the gravitational interaction as a Lorentz
metric near the sun satisfies the field equations, and it is easily shown that (1) the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, (2) the components of the intrinsic (Gaussian) curvature are properly covariant between the two systems ofAlternatively, in the context of general relativity, i.e., "when the curvature of space-time is considered", rather than discussing the "force of gravity", we note that the earth's trajectory is a helical geodesic path through spacetime, whose
components* are covariant.)the intrinsic curvature is going to covary with the distant observer's relative velocity...
No, the *components* of the intrinsic curvature are covariant *under transformation of the coordinate system*.
If the intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it doesn't)...
The intrinsic curvature is what determines the gravitational effect. A geodesic path is a path that makes the proper distance stationary, and it depends crucially on the intrinsic curvature of the manifold, which of course is invariant. (The *
when described in terms of another coordinate system. We covered this before.that change would be to further intensify the gravitation felt by the earth...
No, there is no change in the physical situation, it is merely being described it in terms of two different systems of coordinates. Likewise a golf ball that rolls into the cup when described in terms of one coordinate system also rolls into the cup
[Relativity] taught us that no inertial frame is to be preferred more than any
other inertial frame.
considering the solar system from the inertial rest frame of the
distant observer. In THAT frame the speeding sun REALLY IS
only half as thick...
the hands of any clock moving at relativistic velocity also describe a helical path--but a helical path in which the tightness of the helix is dependent on gamma. The helical path does not affect ... the earth's
orbital velocity in any meaningful way...
Relativity is a multiverse theory.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 7:45:07 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:Lorentz invariant force, and trivially account for the force balance in terms of both systems of coordinates as a simple exercise in special relativity. Same as for a mass-spring system or flywheel of a clock mechanism or any other physical phenomenon.
The significance of the two contexts (special and general relativity) pertains to how the gravitational effect is modeled. In the relevant weak field limit on the flat background we can accurately model the gravitational interaction as a
metric near the sun satisfies the field equations, and it is easily shown that (1) the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, (2) the components of the intrinsic (Gaussian) curvature are properly covariant between the two systems ofAlternatively, in the context of general relativity, i.e., "when the curvature of space-time is considered", rather than discussing the "force of gravity", we note that the earth's trajectory is a helical geodesic path through spacetime, whose
components* are covariant.)the intrinsic curvature is going to covary with the distant observer's relative velocity...
No, the *components* of the intrinsic curvature are covariant *under transformation of the coordinate system*.
If the intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it doesn't)...
The intrinsic curvature is what determines the gravitational effect. A geodesic path is a path that makes the proper distance stationary, and it depends crucially on the intrinsic curvature of the manifold, which of course is invariant. (The *
cup when described in terms of another coordinate system. We covered this before.that change would be to further intensify the gravitation felt by the earth...
No, there is no change in the physical situation, it is merely being described it in terms of two different systems of coordinates. Likewise a golf ball that rolls into the cup when described in terms of one coordinate system also rolls into the
the approaching observer is at rest. That's why I keep pointing out to you that the field equations of general relativity are satisfied by the metric exporessed in terms of either system of coordinates, and the earth's trajectory is a geodesic solution[Relativity] taught us that no inertial frame is to be preferred more than any
other inertial frame.
More precisely, the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, and indeed the laws of physics take the same form in terms of the quasi-inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest as they do in terms of the quasi-inertial coordinates in which
the sun is at rest. And all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of both of these coordinate systems. Understand?considering the solar system from the inertial rest frame of the
distant observer. In THAT frame the speeding sun REALLY IS
only half as thick...
To be clear, when described in terms of these coordinates, the spatial extent of the sun (in the direction of motion) at a given time slice of this coordinate time is less than its spatial extent at a slice of the inertial coordinate system in which
Two points, Legion my boy:the hands of any clock moving at relativistic velocity also describe a helical path--but a helical path in which the tightness of the helix is dependent on gamma. The helical path does not affect ... the earth's orbital velocity in any meaningful way...
Again, the curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time is invariant, i.e., if you compute the curvature in terms of either system of coordinates, you get exactly the same answer. We covered this before.
in two different languages or in terms of two different sets of labels the *description* will be different, but what is being described is the same. We covered this before.Relativity is a multiverse theory.Not at all. Minkowski called it The Theory of the Absolute World, and Einstein originally preferred calling it invariant theory. It provides a single coherent account of the phenomena. Of course, it goes without saying that when something is described
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:30:35 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:Lorentz invariant force, and trivially account for the force balance in terms of both systems of coordinates as a simple exercise in special relativity. Same as for a mass-spring system or flywheel of a clock mechanism or any other physical phenomenon.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 7:45:07 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
The significance of the two contexts (special and general relativity) pertains to how the gravitational effect is modeled. In the relevant weak field limit on the flat background we can accurately model the gravitational interaction as a
whose metric near the sun satisfies the field equations, and it is easily shown that (1) the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, (2) the components of the intrinsic (Gaussian) curvature are properly covariant between the two systems ofAlternatively, in the context of general relativity, i.e., "when the curvature of space-time is considered", rather than discussing the "force of gravity", we note that the earth's trajectory is a helical geodesic path through spacetime,
components* are covariant.)the intrinsic curvature is going to covary with the distant observer's relative velocity...
No, the *components* of the intrinsic curvature are covariant *under transformation of the coordinate system*.
If the intrinsic curvature delta affects the situation in any way (which it doesn't)...
The intrinsic curvature is what determines the gravitational effect. A geodesic path is a path that makes the proper distance stationary, and it depends crucially on the intrinsic curvature of the manifold, which of course is invariant. (The *
cup when described in terms of another coordinate system. We covered this before.that change would be to further intensify the gravitation felt by the earth...
No, there is no change in the physical situation, it is merely being described it in terms of two different systems of coordinates. Likewise a golf ball that rolls into the cup when described in terms of one coordinate system also rolls into the
the approaching observer is at rest. That's why I keep pointing out to you that the field equations of general relativity are satisfied by the metric exporessed in terms of either system of coordinates, and the earth's trajectory is a geodesic solution[Relativity] taught us that no inertial frame is to be preferred more than any
other inertial frame.
More precisely, the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant, and indeed the laws of physics take the same form in terms of the quasi-inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest as they do in terms of the quasi-inertial coordinates in which
the sun is at rest. And all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of both of these coordinate systems. Understand?considering the solar system from the inertial rest frame of the
distant observer. In THAT frame the speeding sun REALLY IS
only half as thick...
To be clear, when described in terms of these coordinates, the spatial extent of the sun (in the direction of motion) at a given time slice of this coordinate time is less than its spatial extent at a slice of the inertial coordinate system in which
the calculation. You hardly expect us to take your word for it that you get exactly the same answer in both coordinate systems in light of your reputation as a notorious relativity crack pot.Two points, Legion my boy:the hands of any clock moving at relativistic velocity also describe a helical path--but a helical path in which the tightness of the helix is dependent on gamma. The helical path does not affect ... the earth's orbital velocity in any meaningful way...
Again, the curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time is invariant, i.e., if you compute the curvature in terms of either system of coordinates, you get exactly the same answer. We covered this before.1) Yes, we covered this before. BUT YOU NEVER SHOWED US YOUR CALCULATIONS. Will you please a) complete the calculation and show your work using kilograms, seconds, and meters so that this forum can check your work, b) explain why you will not complete
described in two different languages or in terms of two different sets of labels the *description* will be different, but what is being described is the same. We covered this before.Relativity is a multiverse theory.Not at all. Minkowski called it The Theory of the Absolute World, and Einstein originally preferred calling it invariant theory. It provides a single coherent account of the phenomena. Of course, it goes without saying that when something is
2) Yes we covered this many times, ad nauseam. And each time you fail to dispositively demonstrate that the outcomes for both frames are the same. Instead you continue, again ad nauseam, to scrawl simplistic schema copied from your relativity books andhold them forth as some sort of demonstration to be taken at your word. Please see point 1) in this regard.
The curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time
is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary
fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you
to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then ignore.]
and show your work using kilograms, seconds, and meters
Yes we covered this many times, ad nauseam. And each time you fail to dispositively demonstrate that the outcomes for both frames are the same.
That is untrue. Again, describing the phenomena in terms of a different coordinate system does not change the phenomena.
You're still failing to distinguish between passive and active transformations, and of course you are still failing to distinguish between the extrinsic curvature of a trajectory and the intrinsic curvature of a manifold, and so on.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:general relativity) pertains to how the gravitational effect is modeled. In the relevant weak field limit on the flat background we can accurately model the gravitational interaction as a Lorentz invariant force, and trivially account for the force
https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf
But the most interesting part of my paper is:
"Answer when the curvature of space-time is considered."
So in stead of nitpicking about the rather trivial SR
solutions of the problem, it would be more interesting
if you have a look at this part of the paper.
It may well be that I have made errors which you can catch.
The fact that the time dilation between the different systems of isotropic coordinates moving relatively at near light speed dwarfs the gravitational time dilation effect is not really at issue. The significance of the two contexts (special and
Alternatively, in the context of general relativity, i.e., "when the curvature of space-time is considered", rather than discussing the "force of gravity", we note that the earth's trajectory is a helical geodesic path through spacetime, whose metricnear the sun satisfies the field equations, and it is easily shown that (1) the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, (2) the components of the intrinsic (Gaussian) curvature are properly covariant between the two systems of coordinates, (3)
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. Hence the curvature is expressed entirely in terms of inner products, and since the inner product of two 4-vectors is invariant under Lorentz transformations, this shows that the curvature is explicitly invariant under Lorentz
The curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary
fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you
to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then ignore.]
Sure, letting p(q) denote the position 4-vector [t,x,y,z] along the trajectory, parameterized by an arbitrary scalar parameter q, and letting primes denote derivatives with respect to q, the curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 - ||p'||^
seconds and (light)seconds, and the curvature is explicitly invariant. The fact that the gravitational field equations remain satisfied under this coordinate transformation is also immediate, since they are given by a tensor equation. (An elementaryand show your work using kilograms, seconds, and metersWhat "work" are you referring to? Are you asking me to give you a remedial course in 4-vectors and differential geometry to learn the definition of the curvature of a trajectory, radius of curvature, osculating planes, and so on?
Also, bear in mind that the curvature of the trajectory under coordinate transformation does not involve kilograms. Further, the curvature of the trajectory is not in terms of space, but in terms of space-time, so we use common units with c=1, such as
between the extrinsic curvature of a trajectory and the intrinsic curvature of a manifold, and so on. You've actually been given highly concise primers on all these subjects (you're welcome)... and you've ignored them.Yes we covered this many times, ad nauseam. And each time you fail to dispositively demonstrate that the outcomes for both frames are the same.That is untrue. Again, describing the phenomena in terms of a different coordinate system does not change the phenomena. You're still failing to distinguish between passive and active transformations, and of course you are still failing to distinguish
Remember, when things are explained to you in terms of the balance between centrifugal forces and centripetal forces, and how that balance is maintained, complete with the simple equations that solve your befuddlement, including the transverse factoron the centripetal force that fixes your equations, you run away from that, and begin talking about curvature and general relativity, which you don't even begin to understand.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:12:20 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
Remember, when things are explained to you in terms of the balance between centrifugal forces and centripetal forces, and how that balance is maintained,
complete with the simple equations that solve your befuddlement, including the transverse factor on the centripetal force that fixes your equations, you run
away from that, and begin talking about curvature and general relativity, which
you don't even begin to understand.
Legion, one glance at your worthless word-wall was sufficient to see that you did
not do as you were told. You calculated nothing! And even after I gave you an example of what this forum expects from you. Try again. Here is even more help.
First, forget about Gary Harnagel's answer a' = a(1 - u/c).
Gary is a sloppy thinker and this leads to his sloppy physics.
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime curvature in balance is a' = a/gamma. Work though my example to find that this is
how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma. So, of course the curvature must diminish by the same quantum. Now, starting from the field equations, please derive a' = a/gamma. Go.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:12:20 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
Remember, when things are explained to you in terms of the balance between
centrifugal forces and centripetal forces, and how that balance is maintained,
complete with the simple equations that solve your befuddlement, including
the transverse factor on the centripetal force that fixes your equations, you run
away from that, and begin talking about curvature and general relativity, which
you don't even begin to understand.
Legion, one glance at your worthless word-wall was sufficient to see that you didPat, Pat, Pat, Pat! That is incorrect. Talk about sloppiness! Weber's equation is
not do as you were told. You calculated nothing! And even after I gave you an
example of what this forum expects from you. Try again. Here is even more help.
First, forget about Gary Harnagel's answer a' = a(1 - u/c).
d^2x/dtau^2 = DEL (GM/R)(1 - u/c) + ...
which does NOT say that a' = a(1 - u/c). The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL,
GM/R, is modified by (1 - v/c).
Gary is a sloppy thinker and this leads to his sloppy physics.Pot, kettle, black :-))
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetimeYou are still in denial, Pat. Your sloppy assertion that the gravitational potential
curvature in balance is a' = a/gamma. Work though my example to find that this is
how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma. So, of course the curvature must
diminish by the same quantum. Now, starting from the field equations, please
derive a' = a/gamma. Go.
from the perspective of the observer = GM/R is refuted by Weber's equation. That
should be enough to dissuade any rational person from carrying on this charade.
"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." -- Acts 9:5
If you were Saul, you'd still be persecuting Christians.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:31:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
First, forget about Gary Harnagel's answer a' = a(1 - u/c).
Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat! That is incorrect. Talk about sloppiness! Weber's equation is
d^2x/dtau^2 = DEL (GM/R)(1 - u/c) + ...
which does NOT say that a' = a(1 - u/c). The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL,
GM/R, is modified by (1 - v/c).
Gary is a sloppy thinker and this leads to his sloppy physics.
Pot, kettle, black :-))
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime
curvature in balance is a' = a/gamma. Work though my example to find that this is
how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma. So, of course the curvature must
diminish by the same quantum. Now, starting from the field equations, please
derive a' = a/gamma. Go.
You are still in denial, Pat. Your sloppy assertion that the gravitational potential
from the perspective of the observer = GM/R is refuted by Weber's equation. That
should be enough to dissuade any rational person from carrying on this charade.
"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." -- Acts 9:5
If you were Saul, you'd still be persecuting Christians.Gary Harnagel,
"is modified by" is not a mathematical operator. Please combine the subject "GM/R"
with the verb "is modified by" and the predicate "1(1 - v/c)" into an intelligible
mathematical equation. Then we can take its derivative and check it against BBP.
As for who might be more Saul-like, at the movement, you are going through your
"Road to Damascus" moment with the BBP. But the scales have yet to fall from your eyes:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. Hence the curvature is expressed entirely in terms of inner products, and since the inner product of two 4-vectors is invariant under Lorentz transformations, this shows that the curvature is explicitly invariant under Lorentz
The curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary
fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you
to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then ignore.]
Sure, letting p(q) denote the position 4-vector [t,x,y,z] along the trajectory, parameterized by an arbitrary scalar parameter q, and letting primes denote derivatives with respect to q, the curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 - ||p'||^
seconds and (light)seconds, and the curvature is explicitly invariant. The fact that the gravitational field equations remain satisfied under this coordinate transformation is also immediate, since they are given by a tensor equation. (An elementaryand show your work using kilograms, seconds, and metersWhat "work" are you referring to? Are you asking me to give you a remedial course in 4-vectors and differential geometry to learn the definition of the curvature of a trajectory, radius of curvature, osculating planes, and so on?
Also, bear in mind that the curvature of the trajectory under coordinate transformation does not involve kilograms. Further, the curvature of the trajectory is not in terms of space, but in terms of space-time, so we use common units with c=1, such as
between the extrinsic curvature of a trajectory and the intrinsic curvature of a manifold, and so on. You've actually been given highly concise primers on all these subjects (you're welcome)... and you've ignored them.Yes we covered this many times, ad nauseam. And each time you fail to dispositively demonstrate that the outcomes for both frames are the same.That is untrue. Again, describing the phenomena in terms of a different coordinate system does not change the phenomena. You're still failing to distinguish between passive and active transformations, and of course you are still failing to distinguish
Remember, when things are explained to you in terms of the balance between centrifugal forces and centripetal forces, and how that balance is maintained, complete with the simple equations that solve your befuddlement, including the transverse factoron the centripetal force that fixes your equations, you run away from that, and begin talking about curvature and general relativity, which you don't even begin to understand.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:51:12 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:31:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
First, forget about Gary Harnagel's answer a' = a(1 - u/c).
Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat! That is incorrect. Talk about sloppiness! Weber's equation is
d^2x/dtau^2 = DEL (GM/R)(1 - u/c) + ...
which does NOT say that a' = a(1 - u/c). The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL,
GM/R, is modified by (1 - v/c).
Gary is a sloppy thinker and this leads to his sloppy physics.
Pot, kettle, black :-))
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime
curvature in balance is a' = a/gamma. Work though my example to find that this is
how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma. So, of course the curvature must
diminish by the same quantum. Now, starting from the field equations, please
derive a' = a/gamma. Go.
You are still in denial, Pat. Your sloppy assertion that the gravitational potential
from the perspective of the observer = GM/R is refuted by Weber's equation. That
should be enough to dissuade any rational person from carrying on this charade.
"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." -- Acts 9:5
If you were Saul, you'd still be persecuting Christians.Gary Harnagel,
"is modified by" is not a mathematical operator. Please combine the subject "GM/R"I did not write "1(1 - v/c)", Dolatroll. Google keeps a record. I did, however, make a typo:
with the verb "is modified by" and the predicate "1(1 - v/c)" into an intelligible
mathematical equation. Then we can take its derivative and check it against BBP.
it should have been "The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL, GM/R, is modified by
(1 - u/c)."
As for who might be more Saul-like, at the movement, you are going through yourStop being a Dolatroll. You have totally lost your argument yet you continue to lie and to
"Road to Damascus" moment with the BBP. But the scales have yet to fall from your eyes:
persecute the true believers, Pharisee.
|^2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. Hence the curvature is expressed entirely in terms of inner products, and since the inner product of two 4-vectors is invariant under Lorentz transformations, this shows that the curvature is explicitly invariant under LorentzThe curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time
is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary
fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you
to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then ignore.]
Sure, letting p(q) denote the position 4-vector [t,x,y,z] along the trajectory, parameterized by an arbitrary scalar parameter q, and letting primes denote derivatives with respect to q, the curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 - ||p'|
You calculated nothing!
I gave you an example of what this [idiot] expects from you.
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime curvature in balance...
Work though my example to find that this is how the centrifugal is
dependent on gamma.
So, of course the curvature must diminish by the same quantum.
Now, starting from the field equations, please derive a' = a/gamma.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 6:20:41 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:p'||^2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. Hence the curvature is expressed entirely in terms of inner products, and since the inner product of two 4-vectors is invariant under Lorentz transformations, this shows that the curvature is explicitly invariant under Lorentz
The curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time
is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then ignore.]
Sure, letting p(q) denote the position 4-vector [t,x,y,z] along the trajectory, parameterized by an arbitrary scalar parameter q, and letting primes denote derivatives with respect to q, the curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 - ||
system of coordinates. You're welcome.You calculated nothing!
Not true. I showed you the calculation of the curvature of a trajectory in spacetime, and that it is purely a function of the inner product of 4-vectors, thereby giving exactly the same result for the earth'd helical trajectory in terms of either
coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored theI gave you an example of what this [idiot] expects from you.
Right, and your expectations are wrong. The calculation of the curvature of the helical trajectory is as shown above. What part of this don't you understand?
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime curvature in balance...
Huh? Centrifugal acceleration and spacetime curvature are two entirely different and incomsurate things. Again, you've already been given the explanation of how the centripetal force and the centrifugal "force" are balanced in terms of both systems of
explanation. Remember?carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.
Work though my example to find that this is how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma.Again, all this was explained to you long ago, multiple times, including the explanation of the missing gamma factor in your attempted analysis.
So, of course the curvature must diminish by the same quantum.Again, the intrinsic spacetime curvature is entirely different concept from the extrinsic curvature of the earth's trajectory, and neither of those is comensurate with the centripetal force and centrifigal acceleration. All these things have been
is invariant, and the intrinsic curvature of the spacetime manifold is also invariant with covariant components depending on the chosen system of coordinates, and those field equations are manifestly still satisfied in terms of both systems. We coveredNow, starting from the field equations, please derive a' = a/gamma.The extra gamma fgactor that you are missing doesn't come from the gravitational field equatiuons, it comes from the local Lorentz invariance of all conveyances of momentum 3-vector, and the curvature of the trajectory 4-vector trajectory in spacetime
|p'||^2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. Hence the curvature is expressed entirely in terms of inner products, and since the inner product of two 4-vectors is invariant under Lorentz transformations, this shows that the curvature is explicitly invariant under LorentzThe curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time
is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you
to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then
ignore.]
Sure, letting p(q) denote the position 4-vector [t,x,y,z] along the trajectory, parameterized by an arbitrary scalar parameter q, and letting primes denote derivatives with respect to q, the curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 - |
system of coordinates. You're welcome.You calculated nothing!
Not true. I showed you the calculation of the curvature of a trajectory in spacetime, and that it is purely a function of the inner product of 4-vectors, thereby giving exactly the same result for the earth'd helical trajectory in terms of either
of coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored theI gave you an example of what this [idiot] expects from you.
Right, and your expectations are wrong. The calculation of the curvature of the helical trajectory is as shown above. What part of this don't you understand?
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime
curvature in balance...
Huh? Centrifugal acceleration and spacetime curvature are two entirely different and incomsurate things. Again, you've already been given the explanation of how the centripetal force and the centrifugal "force" are balanced in terms of both systems
carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.explanation. Remember?
Work though my example to find that this is how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma.Again, all this was explained to you long ago, multiple times, including the explanation of the missing gamma factor in your attempted analysis.
So, of course the curvature must diminish by the same quantum.Again, the intrinsic spacetime curvature is entirely different concept from the extrinsic curvature of the earth's trajectory, and neither of those is comensurate with the centripetal force and centrifigal acceleration. All these things have been
spacetime is invariant, and the intrinsic curvature of the spacetime manifold is also invariant with covariant components depending on the chosen system of coordinates, and those field equations are manifestly still satisfied in terms of both systems. WeNow, starting from the field equations, please derive a' = a/gamma.The extra gamma fgactor that you are missing doesn't come from the gravitational field equatiuons, it comes from the local Lorentz invariance of all conveyances of momentum 3-vector, and the curvature of the trajectory 4-vector trajectory in
All of it.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:14:07 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:||p'||^2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. Hence the curvature is expressed entirely in terms of inner products, and since the inner product of two 4-vectors is invariant under Lorentz transformations, this shows that the curvature is explicitly invariant under
The curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time
is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you
to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then
ignore.]
Sure, letting p(q) denote the position 4-vector [t,x,y,z] along the trajectory, parameterized by an arbitrary scalar parameter q, and letting primes denote derivatives with respect to q, the curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 -
system of coordinates. You're welcome.You calculated nothing!
Not true. I showed you the calculation of the curvature of a trajectory in spacetime, and that it is purely a function of the inner product of 4-vectors, thereby giving exactly the same result for the earth'd helical trajectory in terms of either
of coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored theI gave you an example of what this [idiot] expects from you.
Right, and your expectations are wrong. The calculation of the curvature of the helical trajectory is as shown above. What part of this don't you understand?
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime
curvature in balance...
Huh? Centrifugal acceleration and spacetime curvature are two entirely different and incomsurate things. Again, you've already been given the explanation of how the centripetal force and the centrifugal "force" are balanced in terms of both systems
carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.explanation. Remember?
Work though my example to find that this is how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma.Again, all this was explained to you long ago, multiple times, including the explanation of the missing gamma factor in your attempted analysis.
So, of course the curvature must diminish by the same quantum.Again, the intrinsic spacetime curvature is entirely different concept from the extrinsic curvature of the earth's trajectory, and neither of those is comensurate with the centripetal force and centrifigal acceleration. All these things have been
spacetime is invariant, and the intrinsic curvature of the spacetime manifold is also invariant with covariant components depending on the chosen system of coordinates, and those field equations are manifestly still satisfied in terms of both systems. WeNow, starting from the field equations, please derive a' = a/gamma.The extra gamma fgactor that you are missing doesn't come from the gravitational field equatiuons, it comes from the local Lorentz invariance of all conveyances of momentum 3-vector, and the curvature of the trajectory 4-vector trajectory in
be confused with the intrinsic curvature of spacetime), in terms of both systems of coordinates, and it's explicitly the same in both. This debunks your beliefs. What part of this don't you understand?All of it.
It's difficult to know how to clarify things if you can't articulate what you don't understand. Just take things one at a time: You have been given the explicit formula for the extrinsic curvature of the earth's helical trajectory in spacetime (not to
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:32:55 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:51:12 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"is modified by" is not a mathematical operator. Please combine the subject "GM/R"
with the verb "is modified by" and the predicate "1(1 - v/c)" into an intelligible
mathematical equation. Then we can take its derivative and check it against BBP.
I did not write "1(1 - v/c)", Dolatroll. Google keeps a record. I did, however, make a typo:
it should have been "The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL, GM/R, is modified by
(1 - u/c)."
As for who might be more Saul-like, at the movement, you are going through your
"Road to Damascus" moment with the BBP. But the scales have yet to fall from your eyes:
Stop being a Dolatroll. You have totally lost your argument yet you continue to lie and to
persecute the true believers, Pharisee.
What if I admit right now that I am wrong and that I lost and you won, Gary Harnagel. Will you
then publish your *complete* modified potential equation to this forum? If not, why not?
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:2 - ||p'||^2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. Hence the curvature is expressed entirely in terms of inner products, and since the inner product of two 4-vectors is invariant under Lorentz transformations, this shows that the curvature is explicitly invariant under
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:14:07 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
The curvature of the helical trajectory of the earth through space-time
is invariant. We covered this before.
[Thank you for reminding me of this, which I've now researched and
discovered to my embarrassment is a very well known and elementary
fact. Unfortunately, due to my mental disability, I must stil ask you
to please spoon feed me the calculations, which of course I will then
ignore.]
Sure, letting p(q) denote the position 4-vector [t,x,y,z] along the trajectory, parameterized by an arbitrary scalar parameter q, and letting primes denote derivatives with respect to q, the curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^
system of coordinates. You're welcome.You calculated nothing!
Not true. I showed you the calculation of the curvature of a trajectory in spacetime, and that it is purely a function of the inner product of 4-vectors, thereby giving exactly the same result for the earth'd helical trajectory in terms of either
systems of coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored theI gave you an example of what this [idiot] expects from you.
Right, and your expectations are wrong. The calculation of the curvature of the helical trajectory is as shown above. What part of this don't you understand?
The correct answer, the answer that keeps the centrifugal and the spacetime
curvature in balance...
Huh? Centrifugal acceleration and spacetime curvature are two entirely different and incomsurate things. Again, you've already been given the explanation of how the centripetal force and the centrifugal "force" are balanced in terms of both
carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.explanation. Remember?
Work though my example to find that this is how the centrifugal is dependent on gamma.Again, all this was explained to you long ago, multiple times, including the explanation of the missing gamma factor in your attempted analysis.
So, of course the curvature must diminish by the same quantum.Again, the intrinsic spacetime curvature is entirely different concept from the extrinsic curvature of the earth's trajectory, and neither of those is comensurate with the centripetal force and centrifigal acceleration. All these things have been
spacetime is invariant, and the intrinsic curvature of the spacetime manifold is also invariant with covariant components depending on the chosen system of coordinates, and those field equations are manifestly still satisfied in terms of both systems. WeNow, starting from the field equations, please derive a' = a/gamma.The extra gamma fgactor that you are missing doesn't come from the gravitational field equatiuons, it comes from the local Lorentz invariance of all conveyances of momentum 3-vector, and the curvature of the trajectory 4-vector trajectory in
to be confused with the intrinsic curvature of spacetime), in terms of both systems of coordinates, and it's explicitly the same in both. This debunks your beliefs. What part of this don't you understand?All of it.
It's difficult to know how to clarify things if you can't articulate what you don't understand. Just take things one at a time: You have been given the explicit formula for the extrinsic curvature of the earth's helical trajectory in spacetime (not
[Instead of answering, like a spoiled child I am going to ignore and run away from everything you just explained, debunking all my beliefs, and instead ask] for the equation for how the spacetime curvature (either inner or outer or both)
It will be an invaluable research tool for me.
I will pay any price for said equation. Just name it.
Just name it. Sylvia, rotchm, Dono, either Jan, Python, Prokary, Athel, Dirk & Bodkin (wherever you are) feel free to chime in. Volroney, and Muttons need not apply.
Please teach me the equation for how the spacetime curvature (either inner
or outer or both)...
It will be an invaluable research tool for me.
I will pay any price for said equation. Just name it.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:32:55 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:51:12 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"is modified by" is not a mathematical operator. Please combine the subject "GM/R"
with the verb "is modified by" and the predicate "1(1 - v/c)" into an intelligible
mathematical equation. Then we can take its derivative and check it against BBP.
I did not write "1(1 - v/c)", Dolatroll. Google keeps a record. I did, however, make a typo:
it should have been "The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL, GM/R, is modified by
(1 - u/c)."
As for who might be more Saul-like, at the movement, you are going through your
"Road to Damascus" moment with the BBP. But the scales have yet to fall from your eyes:
Stop being a Dolatroll. You have totally lost your argument yet you continue to lie and to
persecute the true believers, Pharisee.
What if I admit right now that I am wrong and that I lost and you won, Gary Harnagel. Will you(1) It's not mine, it's from Joseph Weber's book. Dolatroll, stop prevaricating.
then publish your *complete* modified potential equation to this forum? If not, why not?
(2) It's not "complete" because it's only precise to u/c: there are additional terms required to
improve precision. I gave an example supposing the (1 - v/c) were 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v^2/c^2,
which, interestingly, comes out reasonably close to 1/gamma.
(3) Few people that frequent this group are capable of doing what you ask. Bill or Tom Roberts
might be able to do it, but perhaps not. Certainly not me now, maybe in another ten years. Or
maybe not even then.
(4) Your BBP is refuted by the mere presence of Weber's equation, so an honest investigator of
relativity would admit that.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:08:49 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:32:55 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:51:12 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"is modified by" is not a mathematical operator. Please combine the subject "GM/R"
with the verb "is modified by" and the predicate "1(1 - v/c)" into an intelligible
mathematical equation. Then we can take its derivative and check it against BBP.
I did not write "1(1 - v/c)", Dolatroll. Google keeps a record. I did, however, make a typo:
it should have been "The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL, GM/R, is modified by
(1 - u/c)."
As for who might be more Saul-like, at the movement, you are going through your
"Road to Damascus" moment with the BBP. But the scales have yet to fall from your eyes:
Stop being a Dolatroll. You have totally lost your argument yet you continue to lie and to
persecute the true believers, Pharisee.
What if I admit right now that I am wrong and that I lost and you won, Gary Harnagel. Will you
then publish your *complete* modified potential equation to this forum? If not, why not?
(1) It's not mine, it's from Joseph Weber's book. Dolatroll, stop prevaricating.
(2) It's not "complete" because it's only precise to u/c: there are additional terms required to
improve precision. I gave an example supposing the (1 - v/c) were 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v^2/c^2,
which, interestingly, comes out reasonably close to 1/gamma.
(3) Few people that frequent this group are capable of doing what you ask. Bill or Tom Roberts
might be able to do it, but perhaps not. Certainly not me now, maybe in another ten years. Or
maybe not even then.
(4) Your BBP is refuted by the mere presence of Weber's equation, so an honest investigator of
relativity would admit that.
Gary Harnagel, why do you sell yourself short?
It will take you another ten years? To do what?
Do you think that Robert or Legion could even calculate the normal force of a brick on a table top
using the GR? The entire mathematical armamentarium of GR consists of a few closed-form
approximations and the symbolic representation of the EFEs that fools like Volroney and Muttons
wear on their T-shirts.
Nobody has ever actually used the damn things. Don't believe me?
The go ahead, challenge Legion to do a problem--nothing difficult--how about calculating the
trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air.
Where were Legion and Roberts when I laid down the foundations of the Lorentz contraction
velocity? Tell me, if you know and have understanding. Who discovered the Lorentz superluminal
displacements?
Who stretched out the distant observer along axis of the sun that caused the earth to burn? Tell me
if you can.
Who proved 1 = -1 and ended the integers? Surely you know.
Who pushed Kepler into the breach then told Einstein "thus far and no farther"
Do yourself a favor and become my disciple and not there's.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:10:11 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:08:49 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:32:55 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:51:12 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"is modified by" is not a mathematical operator. Please combine the subject "GM/R"
with the verb "is modified by" and the predicate "1(1 - v/c)" into an intelligible
mathematical equation. Then we can take its derivative and check it against BBP.
I did not write "1(1 - v/c)", Dolatroll. Google keeps a record. I did, however, make a typo:
it should have been "The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL, GM/R, is modified by
(1 - u/c)."
As for who might be more Saul-like, at the movement, you are going through your
"Road to Damascus" moment with the BBP. But the scales have yet to fall from your eyes:
Stop being a Dolatroll. You have totally lost your argument yet you continue to lie and to
persecute the true believers, Pharisee.
What if I admit right now that I am wrong and that I lost and you won, Gary Harnagel. Will you
then publish your *complete* modified potential equation to this forum? If not, why not?
(1) It's not mine, it's from Joseph Weber's book. Dolatroll, stop prevaricating.
(2) It's not "complete" because it's only precise to u/c: there are additional terms required to
improve precision. I gave an example supposing the (1 - v/c) were 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v^2/c^2,
which, interestingly, comes out reasonably close to 1/gamma.
(3) Few people that frequent this group are capable of doing what you ask. Bill or Tom Roberts
might be able to do it, but perhaps not. Certainly not me now, maybe in another ten years. Or
maybe not even then.
(4) Your BBP is refuted by the mere presence of Weber's equation, so an honest investigator of
relativity would admit that.
Gary Harnagel, why do you sell yourself short?I don't. Unlike you, I tell the truth.
It will take you another ten years? To do what?Figure out how take the Einstein field equations to Weber's derivation, and improve on it by adding
additional terms v^n/c^n.
Do you think that Robert or Legion could even calculate the normal force of a brick on a table top
using the GR? The entire mathematical armamentarium of GR consists of a few closed-form
approximations and the symbolic representation of the EFEs that fools like Volroney and Muttons
wear on their T-shirts.
Nobody has ever actually used the damn things. Don't believe me?Not only don't I believe you, I know of people who have done just that. I'm sure Fernando Loup
can do it.
The go ahead, challenge Legion to do a problem--nothing difficult--how about calculating theI *was* going to ask Bill if he could take me through a derivation leading to Weber's equation,
trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air.
but your clumsy interference has made that impossible because it would like I was challenging
him. Thanks a lot, Dolatroll!
Where were Legion and Roberts when I laid down the foundations of the Lorentz contractionSeveral researchers have proposed superluminal frames, certainly not you, but I doubt if they have
velocity? Tell me, if you know and have understanding. Who discovered the Lorentz superluminal
displacements?
any validity. There is some reason to believe that charged superluminal would be unstable because
of Cerenkov radiation. If that; correct, then only uncharged particles can exceed c and be stable.
Observers have to be built up from elementary particles, which uncharged particles aren't likely to be
able to do.
Who stretched out the distant observer along axis of the sun that caused the earth to burn? Tell meWeber told you that you're wrong.
if you can.
Who proved 1 = -1 and ended the integers? Surely you know.I know that paradoxes are composed of legerdemain.
Who pushed Kepler into the breach then told Einstein "thus far and no farther"A fool.
Do yourself a favor and become my disciple and not there's.So now you believe you're greater than Jesus?
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:09:58 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:10:11 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:08:49 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:32:55 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:51:12 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
"is modified by" is not a mathematical operator. Please combine the subject "GM/R"
with the verb "is modified by" and the predicate "1(1 - v/c)" into an intelligible
mathematical equation. Then we can take its derivative and check it against BBP.
I did not write "1(1 - v/c)", Dolatroll. Google keeps a record. I did, however, make a typo:
it should have been "The Newtonian gravitational POTENTIAL, GM/R, is modified by
(1 - u/c)."
As for who might be more Saul-like, at the movement, you are going through your
"Road to Damascus" moment with the BBP. But the scales have yet to fall from your eyes:
Stop being a Dolatroll. You have totally lost your argument yet you continue to lie and to
persecute the true believers, Pharisee.
What if I admit right now that I am wrong and that I lost and you won, Gary Harnagel. Will you
then publish your *complete* modified potential equation to this forum? If not, why not?
(1) It's not mine, it's from Joseph Weber's book. Dolatroll, stop prevaricating.
(2) It's not "complete" because it's only precise to u/c: there are additional terms required to
improve precision. I gave an example supposing the (1 - v/c) were 1/(1 + v/c) = 1 - v/c + v^2/c^2,
which, interestingly, comes out reasonably close to 1/gamma.
(3) Few people that frequent this group are capable of doing what you ask. Bill or Tom Roberts
might be able to do it, but perhaps not. Certainly not me now, maybe in another ten years. Or
maybe not even then.
(4) Your BBP is refuted by the mere presence of Weber's equation, so an honest investigator of
relativity would admit that.
Gary Harnagel, why do you sell yourself short?I don't. Unlike you, I tell the truth.
It will take you another ten years? To do what?Figure out how take the Einstein field equations to Weber's derivation, and improve on it by adding
additional terms v^n/c^n.
Do you think that Robert or Legion could even calculate the normal force of a brick on a table top
using the GR? The entire mathematical armamentarium of GR consists of a few closed-form
approximations and the symbolic representation of the EFEs that fools like Volroney and Muttons
wear on their T-shirts.
Fine. I give the talking stick to Legion. He may proceed with your request, unmolested. I'm truly interested.Nobody has ever actually used the damn things. Don't believe me?Not only don't I believe you, I know of people who have done just that. I'm sure Fernando Loup
can do it.
The go ahead, challenge Legion to do a problem--nothing difficult--how about calculating theI *was* going to ask Bill if he could take me through a derivation leading to Weber's equation,
trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air.
but your clumsy interference has made that impossible because it would like I was challenging
him. Thanks a lot, Dolatroll!
Where were Legion and Roberts when I laid down the foundations of the Lorentz contractionSeveral researchers have proposed superluminal frames, certainly not you, but I doubt if they have
velocity? Tell me, if you know and have understanding. Who discovered the Lorentz superluminal
displacements?
any validity. There is some reason to believe that charged superluminal would be unstable because
of Cerenkov radiation. If that; correct, then only uncharged particles can exceed c and be stable.
Observers have to be built up from elementary particles, which uncharged particles aren't likely to be
able to do.
Who stretched out the distant observer along axis of the sun that caused the earth to burn? Tell meWeber told you that you're wrong.
if you can.
Who proved 1 = -1 and ended the integers? Surely you know.I know that paradoxes are composed of legerdemain.
Who pushed Kepler into the breach then told Einstein "thus far and no farther"A fool.
Do yourself a favor and become my disciple and not there's.So now you believe you're greater than Jesus?
[regurgitrated trash deleted to save numerous electron from being inconvenienced]
Well Gary Harnagel? Where have your relativity heroes gone? It's been 48 hours and
not a sign of either Roberts or Legion.
[Dishonest comparison deleted].
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 427 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:11:16 |
| Calls: | 9,029 |
| Files: | 13,384 |
| Messages: | 6,009,098 |
