• Socrates, irony and relativity.

    From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 16:37:49 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Sep 22 18:14:17 2023
    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.

    “The only true wisdom is to know that you know nothing.” – Socrates

    “Smart people learn from everything and everyone. Average people from their experiences. Stupid people already have all the answers.” – Socrates

    You, Dick, *clearly* think that you have all the answers!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Sep 22 20:18:07 2023
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:14:20 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>

    “The only true wisdom is to know that you know nothing.” – Socrates

    “Smart people learn from everything and everyone. Average people from their experiences. Stupid people already have all the answers.” – Socrates

    You, Dick, *clearly* think that you have all the answers!

    All right, you never fail showing here that you are a special kind of retarded.

    You can't even quote the proper historic assertion, and choose instead a rephrased fallacy, asshole.

    If you use logic to dissect the second phrase, it would show you how it contains contradictions, Einstein.

    Learning from lifelong experiences is exactly equal than learning from everything and everyone, providing that any given person
    has limited access to everything and everyone (a subset of what life really is). Everyone equals to infinity in this world, as well
    as everything. So, your "smart people" grow with the same learning environment than your "average people".

    Socrates never stated that, but you did, because you're a pretentious fucking asshole with a hubris for exaggerated judgmental
    abilities, which you, in your lowlife years, enjoy displaying from your desktop position.

    Maybe you're trying to compensate, late in life, how stupid you were in your productive years. Now, you really sucks.

    There is not a thing like smart, average or stupid ID in life. Everyone has phases playing each role, which can happen almost on a
    single day (not your case, as you're fatally locked on the "idiot phase").

    What really define people is its character, its temperament. And they are borne with this quality, which can't be learned.

    You're born an alpha, a beta or (in your case) an omega type of character.

    And character is DIRECTLY RELATED to intelligence.

    And with character and intelligence, there is no limit for what ANYBODY can do. No need to be a professional or even having
    finished school.

    And, in general, alpha types know all what they need to know to perform and succeed.

    How did this worked for you, omega strain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Sep 22 23:41:49 2023
    On 9/22/2023 9:14 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    Stupid people already have all the answers.” – Socrates

    Hahahaha! Socrates sure had Dick's number, didn't he!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Sep 22 21:26:51 2023
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:18:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:14:20 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    “The only true wisdom is to know that you know nothing.” – Socrates

    “Smart people learn from everything and everyone. Average people from their experiences. Stupid people already have all the answers.” – Socrates

    You, Dick, *clearly* think that you have all the answers!
    All right, you never fail showing here that you are a special kind of retarded.

    You can't even quote the proper historic assertion, and choose instead a rephrased fallacy, asshole.

    If you use logic to dissect the second phrase, it would show you how it contains contradictions, Einstein.

    Learning from lifelong experiences is exactly equal than learning from everything and everyone, providing that any given person
    has limited access to everything and everyone (a subset of what life really is). Everyone equals to infinity in this world, as well
    as everything. So, your "smart people" grow with the same learning environment than your "average people".

    Socrates never stated that, but you did, because you're a pretentious fucking asshole with a hubris for exaggerated judgmental
    abilities, which you, in your lowlife years, enjoy displaying from your desktop position.

    Maybe you're trying to compensate, late in life, how stupid you were in your productive years. Now, you really sucks.

    There is not a thing like smart, average or stupid ID in life. Everyone has phases playing each role, which can happen almost on a
    single day (not your case, as you're fatally locked on the "idiot phase").

    What really define people is its character, its temperament. And they are borne with this quality, which can't be learned.

    You're born an alpha, a beta or (in your case) an omega type of character.

    And character is DIRECTLY RELATED to intelligence.

    And with character and intelligence, there is no limit for what ANYBODY can do. No need to be a professional or even having
    finished school.

    And, in general, alpha types know all what they need to know to perform and succeed.

    How did this worked for you, omega strain?

    Well, I wasn't there to personally verify that Socrates said that, so you can blame Google instead...

    https://yourpositiveoasis.com/30-powerful-quotes-socrates-make-think/

    #11

    If you can't stand the heat, Dick, get the fuck out of the kitchen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 23 10:28:21 2023
    Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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.

    Yeah, sure, before Socrates all Greeks were incapable of irony,

    Jan
    (sounds of irony meters exploding)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 23 10:46:53 2023
    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.
    Richard, this is a new and wonderful theme that you've come up with: "What would _____________ say about relativity?"

    I would like to consider what the great Galileo would say. Galileo is the creator of the use of gadankens in physics. His anvil, rope, hammer gedanken is one of the first ever proffered in the physics and is still the greatest. I modeled the BBP and
    the Kepler's 3 v. Einstein after the gedankens of Galileo the Great, even though he stole the concept of conservation of momentum from Father Domingo de Soto and the School of Salamanca. The Church was right to place him under house arrest--for
    plagiarism, if nothing else.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Sep 23 17:39:25 2023
    On September 22, Richard Hertz wrote:
    Irony, historically created by Socrates,

    Aeschylus.

    combats in the individual the erroneousness of what he believes he knows
    and believes to be true, when in reality it is false.

    Not quite. Irony consists of a SITUATION, not an individual or combat. Otherwise, you're mostly correct, in that it involves a contradiction,
    where the persons involved are unaware of the contradiction.

    For instance, Emperor Biden flies to Hawaii with his entourage,
    burning tons of CO2, then speechifies that the fire is the result
    of global warming. Which looks like hypocrisy, but he's drooling
    and oblivious, so it's irony.

    Or, irony might describe a sequence of events with a paradoxical
    result. Like, Christopher Reeve, who played Superman, was crippled
    by a fall from a horse. Irony to the max -

    If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.

    oh the irony -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Sep 23 19:30:43 2023
    On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 6:39:28 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:

    On September 22, Richard Hertz wrote:

    If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.

    I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answers
    and denigrating those who disagree.

    oh the irony -

    --
    Rich

    It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sat Sep 23 22:29:16 2023
    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:

    If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
    I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answers
    and denigrating those who disagree.
    oh the irony -

    --
    Rich
    It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Sep 24 19:35:34 2023
    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:

    If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
    relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
    I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answers
    and denigrating those who disagree.
    oh the irony -

    --
    Rich
    It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates

    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 :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Sep 24 20:31:20 2023
    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:
    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:

    If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
    relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
    I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answers
    and denigrating those who disagree.
    oh the irony -

    --
    Rich
    It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates

    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

    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
    gadanken the ended relativity once and for all. Relativity lived by the gedanken and it has just been killed by the gedanken.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Sep 26 14:17:14 2023
    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."

    Big Ben is NOT in a flat spacetime.

    With that out of the way

    I already put it out of the way by substituting electrical charge for gravity. Didn't you
    notice?

    we consider and admonish your acedia

    Sorry. I'm all out of "acedia."

    regarding this all-important paradox.

    It's totally unimportant.

    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 gadanken the ended relativity
    once and for all.

    Tachyons are what will be cited by future physicists as most important, not your silly
    assertion about Big Ben.

    Relativity lived by the gedanken and it has just been killed by the gedanken.

    Nope. Relativity lives by EXPERIMENTAL results, and all such results confirm it.
    So relativity is still alive and well.

    As for tachyons, conventional physicists tried to dismiss them by falsely claiming they
    would violate causality. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 proves that they were wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Sep 26 14:29:45 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Sep 26 15:18:45 2023
    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 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.

    I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questioner
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Sep 26 15:24:44 2023
    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 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.
    I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questioner
    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.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Sep 26 16:18:57 2023
    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 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.
    I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questioner
    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.
    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
    The Shock of Global Population Decline
    By: Darrell Bricker, John Ibbitson ]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Sep 26 16:20:31 2023
    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 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.
    I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questioner
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Sep 26 16:37:33 2023
    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 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.
    I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questioner
    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 their positions, and that certainly includes you, Crossen.

    You must have found the hat because you are clearly not a cowboy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Sep 27 10:01:51 2023
    Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

    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."

    Duh. Ever since it was built, someone on the Big Ben clock tower
    watches for the time signal from Greenwich observatory
    for necssary corrections to the pendulum clock,
    and someone at Greenwich keeps track of the Sun in the sky
    to get the time signal right.

    So...

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 27 01:58:04 2023
    On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 01:37:35 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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 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.
    I'm convinced that questioning an ideology in fine details will show an unbearable circular reasoning. That's why killing the questioner
    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

    You only spit at the enemies of your insane (and
    inconsistent) religion, as you were trained for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Sep 27 03:26:36 2023
    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:
    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:

    If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
    relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
    I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answers
    and denigrating those who disagree.
    oh the irony -

    --
    Rich
    It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates

    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
    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, Gary Harnagel.
    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 :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Sep 27 07:41:10 2023
    On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:26:38 AM 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:

    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?

    Sorry, I don't have it at hand. It would do you no good, anyway.

    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 analysis is not from the point of view of the electron but of the nucleus, which is stationary.

    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.

    But the "paradox is imbecilic: It would mean that an observer can destroy a solar system merely
    by moving towards it. It's not even worth considering, particularly since the detailed analysis is
    much more difficult than the trivial treatment given in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Sep 28 06:07:08 2023
    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.” -- 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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Sep 28 10:36:13 2023
    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.” -- 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Sep 28 11:39:04 2023
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:36:16 AM UTC-7, 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:

    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
    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.

    Some things considered motions are just an opposite appearance.
    Begin to move on your world line and around you
    is that opposite appearance.

    Your real movement is creating it.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Thu Sep 28 12:16:51 2023
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:39:06 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:36:16 AM UTC-7, 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:

    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
    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.
    Some things considered motions are just an opposite appearance.
    Begin to move on your world line and around you
    is that opposite appearance.

    Your real movement is creating it.
    This last line is quite Hegelian in my estimation Mitch. What have you been reading lately?

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Sep 28 14:11:35 2023
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Sep 28 17:43:22 2023
    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.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 29 06:42:18 2023
    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:

    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.

    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.

    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.)

    Not at all. I'm not up to solving Big Ben moving toward me at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
    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'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Sep 29 10:53:18 2023
    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:

    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.
    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 checkmated Albert and deserve my crown. Yes?

    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.)
    Not at all. I'm not up to solving Big Ben moving toward me at 0.867c (along the z-axis)
    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'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 29 14:58:32 2023
    On 9/29/2023 1:53 PM, patdolan wrote:
    So you see Gary Harnagel, I have checkmated Albert and deserve my crown. Yes?

    OK, go to your nearest Burger King and ask for one of their cardboard
    crowns. That's pretty much what you deserve for a hodgepodge SR/GR frame jumping mess.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Sep 29 13:09:10 2023
    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, the
    spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun must decrease by 1/gamma

    A vacuous assertion with no proof.

    (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?

    Absolutely not! 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'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Sep 29 13:48:39 2023
    On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 22:09:12 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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

    A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, anyone can check
    GPS - the real measurements are t'=t, like always.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Sep 29 14:07:11 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 1:09:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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, the
    spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun must decrease by 1/gamma
    A vacuous assertion with no proof.
    (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?
    Absolutely not! 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. 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Sep 30 22:54:42 2023
    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:
    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, the
    spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun must decrease by 1/gamma
    A vacuous assertion with no proof.
    (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?
    Absolutely not! 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. 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.
    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
    cousins and their wild unbaptized atheist children, then called to mind our very religious grandparents who spawn the whole pack of them. A wonderful culture destroyed in just three generations. I hold modern physics and biology responsible for this
    state of affairs in mine, and every other family in the civilized world.

    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. But in an era hungering to
    escape the morals of its past and replace them with moral relativity, Big Physics had become besotted by the acclaim and fame it garnered from its "Theory of Relativity". Something had to be done or all was lost. If it came down to a choice between
    the 350 year old theory of Gravity and the new Relativity, it would be Gravity that had to go. Thus was launched the race to replace gravity with a new relativity-friendly theory of planetary attraction. That theory was the theory of invariant curved
    spacetime, aka General Relativity.

    Let this sink in a day, Gary Harnagel. Then we shall proceed to the proof.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 1 07:10:11 2023
    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%20the%
    20paper.

    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 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'. 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.

    [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'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 1 08:01:31 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:30:48 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    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:

    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%20paper.
    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.

    [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'.
    Shall we move on to the proof? Or do you still have more objections along this helical line of reasoning?
    Let 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
    have made priceless contributions to science and to posterity in their efforts to expose the fallacies and outright frauds involved in many of the experimental confirmations of relativity. Richard Hertz, among others, has made Herculean strides in this
    regard. But leaving all that aside for a moment, let us never forget that in our universe where Idealism reigns supreme and materialism is merely an emergent quality of ideas, a good gedanken always trumps experimental results.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 1 07:30:46 2023
    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:

    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%
    20paper.
    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.

    [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'.

    Shall we move on to the proof? Or do you still have more objections along this helical line of reasoning?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 1 10:50:50 2023
    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 1 15:46:27 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:30:48 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

    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%
    20the%20paper.

    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.

    Come now, Pat, all Thomas said was "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28).
    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 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.

    Thanks for the reference, Pat. It seems he didn't really put your doubts to rest, did he. Your
    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 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!

    He and I don't get along very well :-)

    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.

    Yes, and SR works when spacetime curvature is not significant for the problem. So please
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 1 16:24:09 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 3:46:30 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:30:48 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

    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%
    20the%20paper.

    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.
    Come now, Pat, all Thomas said was "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28).
    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 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.
    Thanks for the reference, Pat. It seems he didn't really put your doubts to rest, did he. Your
    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 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!
    He and I don't get along very well :-)
    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.
    Yes, and SR works when spacetime curvature is not significant for the problem. So please
    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.
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 1 18:43:43 2023
    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 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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 1 20:26:59 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:43:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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 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.
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Oct 2 02:14:02 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Oct 1 23:35:30 2023
    On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 08:14:06 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

    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 in your moronic church. Your bunch of idiots
    prefer to blame improper, broken GPS clocks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Oct 2 04:32:02 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:27:01 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Oct 2 04:36:46 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:14:06 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

    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.

    Indeed! I passed up commenting on that brain fart because I was concen- trating on his (other) assumptions. But I'll now comment this way:

    "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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Oct 2 04:47:52 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Oct 2 04:58:12 2023
    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 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.

    Wozzie-boy, you keep posting this same baloney, which proves conclusively
    that you have a screw loose in your brain pan:

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Oct 2 05:06:46 2023
    On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 13:58:14 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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 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.
    Wozzie-boy, you keep posting this same baloney, which proves conclusively that you have a screw loose in your brain pan:

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

    Do you wan't to say that the idiot didn't even know
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Oct 2 11:01:14 2023
    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:

    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.
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Oct 2 15:49:25 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Oct 2 20:21:33 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:06:49 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 13:58:14 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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 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.
    Wozzie-boy, you keep posting this same baloney, which proves conclusively that you have a screw loose in your brain pan:

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
    results." -- Albert Einstein
    Do you wan't to say that the idiot didn't even know
    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.
    An ideology is defended by struggle sessions with unreasonable demands.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Oct 2 21:54:23 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Oct 3 01:26:53 2023
    JanPB 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.

    A childish tantrum.

    How do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?

    --
    Jan

    It's his hobby! He finds it...most relaxing.



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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 3 02:57:02 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 06:16:09 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:57:04 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

    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

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 3 09:22:17 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7:16:11 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    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.

    Don't take it too hard, Pat, it took me four years to work out a successful argument that tachyons,
    even if they existed, could exceed c yet could not violate causality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Oct 3 10:08:23 2023
    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

    Q. Which consequences existed without any relativity, in the past?
    A problem in electromagnetic theory concerning reciprocity of effects
    between conductors and magnets. Many more adverse consequences
    have been found after the theory was propounded.

    Q. What is relativity today?
    A subset of a more general theory, but still essential for dealing with high-energy subatomic particles.

    Q. Why many people reject relativity nowadays?
    A. See the last Q/A.

    Q.What are the consequences of massive rejection of relativity today?
    A. This forum, but nothing else.

    Q. Is relativity being replaced by anything else?
    A. General relativity is used when gravitational effects are significant. Quantum field theory is used when quantum effects are significant.
    The domain where relativity is understood to be applicable has shrunk,
    but it still has an applicable domain. There have been attempts to
    extend it into the faster-than-light donain.

    Q. Why such replacement happens?
    A. Domains shrink as new physical results are discovered.

    Q. What are the consequences of current rejection of relativity?
    A. This forum.

    Q. Are similitude between current rejection of relativity and ancient rejection of relativity?
    A. Relativity was rejected by many because it was new and not understood. Today, it is
    rejected by some because they don't understand it, don't understand that it has a limited
    domain of applicability, insist that it must be tested locally wherever it is used, etc.

    One could go through the list for general relativity and QM, QFT, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 3 19:37:30 2023
    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 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

    So 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/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 3 11:36:17 2023
    On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 19:08:25 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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.

    Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
    lie, Gary.


    “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;

    Well, yes. That's exactly why they were invented.


    rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”

    Every religious maniac is trying to blame
    a Higher Force for his nonsenses; your bunch
    of idiots is no way exceptional.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Oct 3 12:31:28 2023
    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
    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
    So 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/

    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 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Oct 3 13:28:46 2023
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 13:23:06 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 14:45:39 2023
    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 immediately
    consider that he had made an error in his calculations because that is just plain crazy!

    Are you just plain crazy?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Oct 3 17:37:31 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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 immediately
    consider that he had made an error in his calculations because that is just plain crazy!

    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
    something to save the day....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 17:43:16 2023
    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't calculate what the attraction of the sun is in both frames because Weber ehffed-up according to Gary Harnagel.

    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.

    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.

    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.

    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r

    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.

    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.

    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r

    T_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,

    Dolileo

    All 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 18:56:42 2023
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 3 18:53:24 2023
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 18:59:49 2023
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 20:16:08 2023
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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

    C'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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 3 21:14:22 2023
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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
    C'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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 3 21:56:04 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:37:33 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    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
    immediately consider that he had made an error in his calculations because that is just plain crazy!

    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
    something to save the day....

    Again, if you think that an observation can cause the Earth to spiral into the Sun then you have made an error... or, you are as stupid as the mud fence out back...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 3 22:30:09 2023
    Gary Harnagel wrote:

    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


    Gary, you are being hoodwinked. deluded.

    Nature does not *force* ideas upon people. It is people who force their
    ideas
    on Nature.

    And people like the Lawrence M. Krauss in the world force their ideas on
    nature *and* people.

    "A Universe from Nothing"...is that an idea nature forces on people?

    Lawrence M. Krauss force does not come from nature...it comes from his religion.




    The word "Nothing" in Klaus religion means...God.

    Since, according to Klaus religion, God is no thing.

    also according to Klaus religion

    God is also known as ayin "ay-yin") which means...Nothingness.



    So, the title of Krauss book "A Universe from Nothing" translates to:


    A Universe from God


    God is Nothing





    So, when Krauss sez the universe comes from nothing...he's talking
    religion, not nature.

    Nature does not have an aim or purpose. It is man that construct ideas,
    aim and purpose.













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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 4 15:16:53 2023
    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
    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
    So 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/


    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.


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Wed Oct 4 06:30:01 2023
    On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 15:16:21 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    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.

    Oh, sure, Galileo would surely know that Moon is
    no way similiar to a boat from his gedankens.
    That nothing in the real world is any way similiar
    to a boat from his moronic gedankens.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Wed Oct 4 10:05:30 2023
    On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    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
    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
    So 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/


    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.


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    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,
    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?

    Dolileo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 4 20:52:34 2023
    Den 04.10.2023 19:05, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    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
    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
    So 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/


    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.


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    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,
    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?

    Dolileo


    Si!
    You ARE joking!

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Oct 4 16:28:13 2023
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:14:25 PM UTC-7, 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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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
    C'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!

    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
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Oct 4 21:15:11 2023
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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
    C'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.

    I think you have the pronouns reversed.

    That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of the
    following options:

    I don't need to because you lost. The problem is, you ain't smart enough to realize it.

    a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreases

    Nope. 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 remains
    unchanged

    Not by GR, not by SR.

    c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth nor
    the attraction of the sun

    Not by SR.

    d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun change

    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 :-).

    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.

    That is a delusional conclusion on your part. Socrates would never have done that.

    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!

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Oct 4 21:29:16 2023
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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
    C'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.
    I think you have the pronouns reversed.
    That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of the
    following options:
    I don't need to because you lost. The problem is, you ain't smart enough to realize it.
    a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreases
    Nope. 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 remains
    unchanged
    Not by GR, not by SR.
    c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth nor
    the attraction of the sun
    Not by SR.
    d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun change
    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 :-).
    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.
    That is a delusional conclusion on your part. Socrates would never have done that.
    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!
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Oct 4 21:19:58 2023
    On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:28:15 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:14:25 PM UTC-7, 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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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
    C'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!
    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
    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.

    Where did you go Gary Harnagel, where did you go? You are hereby summoned to return to the well of the forum to have your dignity as a physicists officially stripped. Just like all the others who got too close to the Big Ben Paradox. And yes, you may
    then return to your damned tachyons; albeit as a broken man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Oct 4 21:46:27 2023
    On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:29:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    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 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.
    Pat, that's a very misleading and callous thing to say.
    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.
    And Weber's equation demonstrates that it does vary.
    We start with the equation for the earth's centrifugal force = mv^2/r
    Paul 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,
    which is 1/gamma. However the earth's mass will increase by gamma.
    Mass is invariant in relativity, so that claim is incorrect. 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.
    Applying these modifications to the centrifugal force equations gives

    mv^2/r --> (gamma)m(v/gamma)^2/r = mv^2/(gamma)r
    T_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,

    Dolileo
    All 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
    C'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.
    I think you have the pronouns reversed.
    That's how the Socratic method works. I merely ask that you now choose between one of the
    following options:
    I don't need to because you lost. The problem is, you ain't smart enough to realize it.
    a) the orbital velocity of the earth slows down and the suns attraction decreases
    Nope. 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 remains
    unchanged
    Not by GR, not by SR.
    c) the hands of Big Ben slow down but not the orbital velocity of the earth nor
    the attraction of the sun
    Not by SR.
    d) neither the hands of Big Ben slow down, nor does the attraction of the sun change
    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 :-).
    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.
    That is a delusional conclusion on your part. Socrates would never have done that.
    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!
    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.

    The special theory of relativity subsumes the concepts of Lorentz contraction and time dilation. It apparently includes the concept of time contraction also. In which part of the LTs do we find this quality?

    Dolistotle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Oct 4 23:42:47 2023
    On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 06:15:13 UTC+2, 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 :-).

    Well, your moronic physics may be local, but the reality is not, poor halfbrain. Oh, yes, it can.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Oct 5 06:25:01 2023
    On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:42:49 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 06:15:13 UTC+2, 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 :-).
    Well, your moronic physics may be local, but the reality is not, poor halfbrain. Oh, yes, it can.
    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
    proudly shouts "No Illusion. Reality!"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Oct 5 09:01:48 2023
    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's
    most famous of all gedankens, the Twins Paradox?

    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.

    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 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.

    Nope. The traveling twin only sees HALF the velocity, remember? You're conflating the velocity BB
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 5 10:32:42 2023
    On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 18:01:51 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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's
    most famous of all gedankens, the Twins Paradox?
    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.

    Anyone can check GPS to see it's a pure, 100% fabricated
    bullshit, of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 5 10:32:18 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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's
    most famous of all gedankens, the Twins Paradox?
    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.
    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 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.
    Nope. The traveling twin only sees HALF the velocity, remember? You're conflating the velocity BB
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 5 20:20:51 2023
    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/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Thu Oct 5 11:34:33 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:20:17 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    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
    for you: Does SR trump logic or is SR a servant of logic?

    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. After
    anger 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Oct 5 11:38:17 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:34:35 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:20:17 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    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
    for you: Does SR trump logic or is SR a servant of logic?

    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. After
    anger 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.

    All Liberals eventually get "red pilled"
    All relativists eventually get "Big Ben-ed"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Oct 5 12:02:03 2023
    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 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.
    Nope. The traveling twin only sees HALF the velocity, remember? You're conflating the velocity BB
    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 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.

    Nope. I've spent too much time on this nonsense already. It's back to tachyons for me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 5 17:16:24 2023
    On October 4, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
    "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.


    The moon orbits the sun, perturbed by the earth.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Oct 5 17:53:29 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:16:26 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    On October 4, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
    "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.
    The moon orbits the sun, perturbed by the earth.

    --
    Rich
    Agreed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Oct 5 18:28:52 2023
    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:
    On October 4, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
    "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.
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 5 18:54:48 2023
    On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:02:06 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    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 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.
    Nope. The traveling twin only sees HALF the velocity, remember? You're conflating the velocity BB
    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 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.
    Nope. I've spent too much time on this nonsense already. It's back to tachyons for me.

    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. The BBP drove Dirk Vdm from this forum forever. euroHenry and Bodkin disappeared into cyberspace never to be heard from again. Legion was turned into a jabbering chatbot. Jan is a mere shadow of the man he one was. While Paul
    is clearly questioning his own sanity by questioning the sanity of others. All because they got too close to the BBP. Now you join them.

    There will be four stages of your bereavement over the death of relativity. First comes denial--that's where you are now. You won't even acknowledge and own your rebuttal to the BBP. Next comes anger--anger at me, at physics texts and teachers, at Big
    Ben...even at your precious tachyons. This is because you realize that your life of relativity is REALY and TRULY coming to an end. "Why can't it be true!" you will rage into your pillow. Then comes despair as the obvious truth is unavoidable and sets
    in. Finally, acceptance of the truth and your return to the world of normalcy. If you don't keep moving through these stages then you are doomed to wonder the twilight world of insanity you inhabit now.

    Put down those damned tachyons and address what has become the most important thing in your life!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 5 20:49:24 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Oct 5 20:24:43 2023
    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)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Oct 6 00:01:03 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Fri Oct 6 01:49:24 2023
    On Friday, 6 October 2023 at 10:36:59 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    SR is a consistent theory.

    You've got a proof it is not; the only thing you can
    do about it is pretending you didn't notice. As
    expected from a fanatic idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 6 10:37:34 2023
    Den 05.10.2023 20:34, skrev patdolan:
    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.

    Thanks for confirming that you seriously believe
    that according to SR, an arbitrary observer moving
    somewhere in the universe will make Big Ben
    run faster or slower.

    And thanks for demonstrating your "simple logic". :-D

    'nuff said.

    Question for you: Does SR trump logic or is SR a servant of logic?

    SR is a consistent theory.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Oct 6 11:01:28 2023
    Volney <volney@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...

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Oct 6 02:10:44 2023
    On Friday, 6 October 2023 at 11:01:32 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    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...

    Stupid Copernicus didn't get it, and even great Galileo couldn't
    truly accept his ingenious discovery. Fortunately, inquisition
    knew all the time and saved the honour of the human
    knowledge.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 6 11:47:12 2023
    Le 06/10/2023 à 11:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    Fortunately, inquisition knew all the time and saved
    the honour of the human knowledge.

    'nuf said :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Oct 6 13:03:06 2023
    Python <python@invalid.org> wrote:

    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 :-)

    You are the Python here,
    you should mention 'ruthless efficiency',

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Oct 6 06:17:28 2023
    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.
    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=JnfyjwChuNU

    Denial of experimental evidence is denial of reality. Perhaps you should see a shrink
    (not one that also has OCD :-)

    Condolences,
    Gary

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 6 14:51:32 2023
    Le 06/10/2023 à 10:36, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 05.10.2023 20:34, skrev patdolan:

    SR is a consistent theory.

    Non.

    Dans sa forme actuelle, pas vraiment.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Oct 6 11:27:20 2023
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Oct 6 10:04:13 2023
    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:

    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.
    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=JnfyjwChuNU
    Denial 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Oct 6 10:44:23 2023
    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=JnfyjwChuNU
    Denial 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?

    Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat Pat! Both bradyons and luxons are encompassed by the same
    equations.

    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 overburdening. Pleas stop.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Oct 6 10:57:08 2023
    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:

    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=JnfyjwChuNU
    Denial 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?
    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 overburdening. 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Oct 6 13:09:42 2023
    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 derived, the same
    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 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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Oct 6 13:25:47 2023
    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:

    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)??

    This sentence of yours is breaking news:

    The same Einstein field equations from which a = k(1 - u/c) is derive,

    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.
    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 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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Oct 6 16:27:07 2023
    On 10/6/23 3:25 PM, patdolan wrote:
    If invariant spacetime curvature can be shown to actually be
    covariant, then you and Weber deserve the very next Nobel.

    You just keep displaying your profound ignorance of very basic physics
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Oct 6 14:21:14 2023
    On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 2:25:50 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

    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.

    I used Weber's equation, Pat, I did not derive it. You give me much more credit
    than I deserve.

    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?

    Yes? No?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 7 03:08:15 2023
    Le 06/10/2023 à 17:27, Volney a écrit :
    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?

    My nipples are exploding too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grA5XmBRC6g

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Oct 6 22:30:21 2023
    On Friday, 6 October 2023 at 23:27:21 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 10/6/23 3:25 PM, patdolan wrote:
    If invariant spacetime curvature can be shown to actually be
    covariant, then you and Weber deserve the very next Nobel.
    You just keep displaying your profound ignorance of very basic physics
    and math.

    Speaking of basic math, it's always good to remind
    your idiot guru had to announce it false, as it didn't
    want to fit his insane visions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Oct 7 00:55:04 2023
    On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 2:27:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 10/6/23 3:25 PM, patdolan wrote:
    If invariant spacetime curvature can be shown to actually be
    covariant, then you and Weber deserve the very next Nobel.
    You just keep displaying your profound ignorance of very basic physics
    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
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 7 14:58:40 2023
    Den 07.10.2023 14:49, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
    Den 06.10.2023 19:04, skrev patdolan:
    ; 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 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/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html


    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/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 7 14:49:19 2023
    Den 06.10.2023 19:04, skrev patdolan:
    > 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 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/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Oct 7 08:41:22 2023
    On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 5:48:41 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 06.10.2023 19:04, skrev patdolan:
    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 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/
    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.

    Advance of the perihelion of Mercury, a = .9999999
    575.30"/century

    Starlight in the vicinity of the sun, a=0
    φ θ-NM θ-GR
    0.2664⁰ 0.876078" 0.000000" grazing the Sun
    5⁰ 0.046644" 0.000000"
    10⁰ 0.023278" 0.000000"
    20⁰ 0.011550" 0.000000"
    30⁰ 0.007600" 0.000000"
    40⁰ 0.005595" 0.000000"
    60⁰ 0.003527" 0.000000"
    90⁰ 0.002037" 0.000000"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Oct 7 09:26:43 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Oct 7 09:45:10 2023
    On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 9:26:46 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    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.
    Kook fight!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sat Oct 7 12:03:54 2023
    On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 8:31:23 PM UTC-7, 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:
    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:

    If Socrates be alive today, he would destroy relativity and would leave
    relativists eating dust, in their impotence confronting critical thinking.
    I doubt it. He purportedly operated by asking questions, revealing inconsistencies in the answers. Hertz operates by assuming answers
    and denigrating those who disagree.
    oh the irony -

    --
    Rich
    It's definitely ironic that Hertz seems to equate his intellect with Socrates

    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

    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
    gadanken the ended relativity once and for all. Relativity lived by the gedanken and it has just been killed by the gedanken.

    The space-time is flat yes, with a "universal cosmological constant that's only a non-zero infinitesimal",
    while of course acceleration "is the curve", or for a theory of "Nessie's hump".

    Einstein's two greatest contributions are a non-zero but vanishing cosmological constant, and,
    rotational mass-energy equivalency.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Oct 7 14:11:33 2023
    On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 1:40:24 PM 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

    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.

    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
    Read the above again, carefully, and you will see that I am
    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 of the 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).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to No I didn't on Sat Oct 7 22:41:01 2023
    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.


    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

    Read the above again, carefully, and you will see that I am
    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.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Oct 7 20:55:13 2023
    On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 1:40:24 PM 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

    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.
    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
    Read the above again, carefully, and you will see that I am
    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 of the 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).

    You have fallen silent, Gary Harnagel. Just like everyone else before you. You have fallen into the scientific quicksand that is the Big Ben Paradox and you have sunken down deep. All your struggling to escape has only made you sink deeper. And now
    you find that the ooze has reached your lower lip and that you are no longer able to talk. Just like the villain in "The Hounds of the Baskerville" https://youtu.be/ZzkkylWuQI0?si=PTKcuoWgnnVrvcFS&t=6119

    Greater men than you have fallen prey to the BBP, Gary Harnagel. Those who haven't are living on borrowed time. That includes the greatest living physicist of our day: Thorne, Wheeler, Meisner, etc. But their time will come...Good night, sweet Gary
    Harnagel. And my flights of Newtonian angels carry thee to thy rest.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 8 11:09:58 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sun Oct 8 06:02:55 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 8 19:08:33 2023
    On 2023-10-08 13:02:55 +0000, patdolan said:

    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.

    "Since yesterday" is too soon so mean anything. If he doesn't answer in
    two or three days after your answer to his questions then you may ask
    whether he missed your answer.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 8 09:29:42 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 7:02:57 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

    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.

    Which you apparently haven't since you blew off all the evidence I presented demonstrating that the Weber derivation from GR predicts that the accelera- tion of a body by a moving mass is not GM/r^2 but modified by a factor, the approximation of which tends toward the amount required to offset the
    reduction in the fictitious force. You keep exercising "mission creep" in a vain
    attempt to salvage your destroyed BBP.

    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.

    You haven't presented a rebuttal to the fact that acceleration is not del GM/r in
    GR as your BBP assumes, thus your paradox is invalid.

    Gary has most definitely been Big Ben-ed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNlugNFwLII

    Actually, Pat, you have lost another assault against relativity, yet you refuse to
    acknowledge your defeat. You are in the middle of an African river:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/denial

    This is the first stage of a loss. The second stage is anger, a stage that Richard
    Hertz seems to be stuck in. You don't seem to get angry, so you'll never move on
    from denial.

    I began my relativity quest long ago in high school. I wrote two term papers on
    different aspects of it. I naively believed it to be a close description of reality
    (In this respect I compare myself to Herbert Dingle). I discussed relativity with
    a PhD (I continue to do so) and a university student or two. I became suspicious
    of it when I investigated Le Sage gravity. The Le Sagean particles would have to
    travel faster than light to keep earth's orbit stable, so I began investigating tachyons.
    The problem with FTL is that it was asserted that they could violate causality. So I went back to SR and looked at every piece of its derivation. When I found what seemed to be a discrepancy, I investigated it until it was resolved. So I can
    say that SR is correct within its domain of applicability. Tachyons stayed on the
    shelf until about four years ago when someone in this group posted that tachyons
    could not exist because they would violate causality. That got me going again, and it took four years of work and three rejections from publication in refereed
    journals to demonstrate that tachyons (if they existed) would NOT violate causality,
    contrary to what is written in physics textbooks popular books such as Mermin's "It's about Time."

    So, Pat, when I studied and investigated my beliefs and found them at odds with reality, I changed them. You, OTOH, are stuck in de Nile.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sun Oct 8 09:29:43 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-10-08 13:02:55 +0000, patdolan said:

    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.
    "Since yesterday" is too soon so mean anything. If he doesn't answer in
    two or three days after your answer to his questions then you may ask whether he missed your answer.

    Mikko
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 8 20:02:51 2023
    Den 07.10.2023 23:11, skrev Bill:
    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?

    This is the original paper:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf

    I have now corrected the stupid error you
    made me aware of. Thanks.

    I have made three interpretations of Pat Dolan's
    question quoted in the beginning of the document.
    Read it!

    And I think Pat Dolan meant that the observer
    was approaching the Solar system.
    (IIRC the discussion back in 2020 confirmed that.)

    You should also be aware that you have been responding
    to someone who have quoted my paper. It is out of context,
    and not quite correct quotations.

    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.

    I have considered the moving observer to be approaching
    the Sun with the orbiting Earth.


    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
    Read the above again, carefully, and you will see that I am
    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.

    Pat Dolan'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?”

    According to SR, there are 3 possible answers to this question:
    #1:
    The observer's wristwatch will advance 0.229416 year
    while he visually observe one orbit of the Earth.

    #2:
    The observer's wristwatch will advance 2.294157 year
    while he measure that the coordinate time of the solar
    system advance 1 year.

    #3:
    The observer's wristwatch will advance 0.43588989 year
    while one year passes in the solar system.

    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 of
    the 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).

    I have answered Dolan's question.

    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.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Oct 8 13:42:06 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    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:
    "Answer when the curvature of space-time is considered."

    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
    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
    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.

    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
    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)
    the field equations are satisfied, meaning the Ricci tensor vanishes, in terms of both coordinates, (4) the earth's trajectory is a geodesic satisfying the field equations in terms of both coordinates systems, and so on. This is all just Relativity 101.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sun Oct 8 15:41:08 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:42:08 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    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:
    "Answer when the curvature of space-time is considered."
    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
    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
    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.

    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
    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)
    the field equations are satisfied, meaning the Ricci tensor vanishes, in terms of both coordinates, (4) the earth's trajectory is a geodesic satisfying the field equations in terms of both coordinates systems, and so on. This is all just Relativity 101.
    You fool Legion.

    Let me handle this, Paul.

    Of course the intrinsic curvature is going to covary with the distant observer's relative velocity. Hell, 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, Legion, you have only managed to make it worse. How many times have I told you to think your argument through before jumping a half-conclusions, Legion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 8 18:51:10 2023
    On 10/8/23 5:41 PM, patdolan wrote:
    at gamma = 2, the sun is only 1/2 its thickness in the direction of
    the distant observer's direction of travel.

    ... as measured by the distant observer using standard inertial
    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 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.

    Instead of solving the BBP, [...]

    There is no "BBP", there are only your personal fantasies and misunderstandings.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 8 16:51:43 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 3:41:10 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 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.

    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
    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)
    the field equations are satisfied, meaning the Ricci tensor vanishes, in terms of both coordinates, (4) the earth's trajectory is a geodesic satisfying the field equations in terms of both coordinates systems, and so on. This is all just Relativity 101.

    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 *
    components* are covariant.)

    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
    when described in terms of another coordinate system. We covered this before.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Oct 8 17:34:53 2023
    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 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.


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Oct 8 20:42:39 2023
    On 10/8/23 7:34 PM, RichD wrote:
    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.

    [I presume the orbit lies in the x-y plane.]

    Such "inference" is CLEARLY WRONG. The (relative) motion has only
    affected the APPEARANCE of the orbit to the moving observer. The path of
    the satellite is completely and utterly unchanged, as is the sun's gravity.

    [You are as crazy as patdolan, thinking that mere
    observation can affect planetary orbits.]

    Also, to that moving observer the orbit is NOT an ellipse, it is a cycloid.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Oct 8 19:24:08 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 5:34:56 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    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 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.


    --
    Rich
    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
    enjoy as I hoist damned ol' Tom Roberts by his own petard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Oct 8 19:45:05 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 4:51:23 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 10/8/23 5:41 PM, patdolan wrote:
    at gamma = 2, the sun is only 1/2 its thickness in the direction of
    the distant observer's direction of travel.
    ... as measured by the distant observer using standard inertial
    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 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.

    I agree wholeheartedly Tom Roberts. In the solar system's rest frame gravity has not changed. The radial velocity of Big Ben's hands have not changed. The orbital velocity of the earth has not changed. But you are fixating on the solar system's rest
    frame. Our great preceptor, A. Einstein taught us that no inertial frame is to be preferred more than any other inertial frame. So let's put that to the test by 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--it is not an illusion. In THAT frame Big Ben REALLY IS running only half as fast--it is not an illusion. Einstein told us that 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 time dilation of Einstein clock--and so it shouldn't effect the time dilation of Big Ben and the earth's orbital velocity in
    any meaningful way for purposes of the BBP.

    Are there two values of the sun's thickness in the BBP? Yes! Relativity is a multiverse theory. Are there two values of the Earth's orbital velocity in the BBP? Yes! Relativity is a many-worlds theory. Do the two worlds represented by the BBP
    collide in a catastrophic collision of outcomes and logic? Yes! YEs! YES! Relativity is a physically inconsistent theory. It is impossible for both outcomes to be true. Unless....

    (That's your cue, Gary Harnagel)



    Instead of solving the BBP, [...]

    There is no "BBP", there are only your personal fantasies and misunderstandings.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 8 20:30:33 2023
    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 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.

    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 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) the field equations are satisfied, meaning the Ricci tensor vanishes, in terms of both coordinates, (4) the earth's trajectory is a geodesic satisfying the field equations in terms of both coordinates systems, and so on. This is all just
    Relativity 101.

    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 *
    components* are covariant.)

    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
    when described in terms of another coordinate system. We covered this before.

    [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
    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 in
    terms of both of them. We covered this before.

    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
    sun is at rest. And all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of both of these coordinate systems. Understand?

    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.

    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
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Sun Oct 8 21:00:02 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:30:35 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    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
    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.

    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 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) the field equations are satisfied, meaning the Ricci tensor vanishes, in terms of both coordinates, (4) the earth's trajectory is a geodesic satisfying the field equations in terms of both coordinates systems, and so on. This is all just
    Relativity 101.

    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 *
    components* are covariant.)

    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 when described in terms of another coordinate system. We covered this before.

    [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 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
    in terms of both of them. We covered this before.
    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 sun is at rest. And all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of both of these coordinate systems. Understand?
    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...
    Two points, Legion my boy:

    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
    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.


    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
    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.

    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 and
    hold them forth as some sort of demonstration to be taken at your word. Please see point 1) in this regard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Oct 8 22:31:35 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:30:35 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    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
    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.

    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 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) the field equations are satisfied, meaning the Ricci tensor vanishes, in terms of both coordinates, (4) the earth's trajectory is a geodesic satisfying the field equations in terms of both coordinates systems, and so on. This is all just
    Relativity 101.

    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 *
    components* are covariant.)

    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 when described in terms of another coordinate system. We covered this before.

    [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 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
    in terms of both of them. We covered this before.
    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 sun is at rest. And all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of both of these coordinate systems. Understand?
    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...
    Two points, Legion my boy:

    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
    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.
    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 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.
    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 and
    hold them forth as some sort of demonstration to be taken at your word. Please see point 1) in this regard.

    Legion let me help you out here. Let me show you how to make a point.

    The earth's mass is 6x10^24Kg. The earth's orbital velocity is about 100,000 Km/hr. So the centrifugal force on the earth in the solar system's frame is (9x10^16 m/s)(6x10^24kg)/1.5^10^11m =5.4x10^30N

    In the distant observer's frame the earth's mass is 12x10^24kg. It's orbital velocity is about 50,000Km/hr and the radius is still 1.5 x 10^11 m for a total of 2.7x10^30N of centrifugal.

    Will you now put up the equation that will diminish the sun's spacetime curvature to the extent that in the distant observer's frame there is only 2.7x10^30N worth of centripetal acceleration. Will you do this? If not, why not? Gary Harnagel had no
    scruple in proudly typing out a' = a(1 - u/c). What will you type to this forum?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Oct 9 00:12:18 2023
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 9:00:05 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"||^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 Lorentz
    transformations.

    and show your work using kilograms, seconds, and meters

    What "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
    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 elementary
    property of tensors is that if a tensor equation is satisfied in one coordinate system it is satisfied in all.)

    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. You've actually been given highly concise primers on all these subjects (you're welcome)... and you've ignored them.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Bill on Mon Oct 9 00:32:30 2023
    On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 09:12:20 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

    That is untrue. Again, describing the phenomena in terms of a different coordinate system does not change the phenomena.

    No description of phenomena is changing them.
    But your tensors are not phenomena, they're
    description.

    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.

    So are your manifolds and curvatures and so on.
    Description.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 9 10:17:31 2023
    Den 08.10.2023 22:42, skrev Bill:
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    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
    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
    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.

    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
    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)
    the field equations are satisfied, meaning the Ricci tensor vanishes, in terms of both coordinates, (4) the earth's trajectory is a geodesic satisfying the field equations in terms of both coordinates systems, and so on. This is all just Relativity 101.

    The question was if you found an error in my application
    of Relativity 101.

    But forget it.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Mon Oct 9 06:20:38 2023
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:12:20 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 9:00:05 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"||^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 Lorentz
    transformations.
    and show your work using kilograms, seconds, and meters
    What "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
    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 elementary
    property of tensors is that if a tensor equation is satisfied in one coordinate system it is satisfied in all.)
    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. You've actually been given highly concise primers on all these subjects (you're welcome)... and you've ignored them.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Oct 9 07:31:17 2023
    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 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).

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Oct 9 09:51:10 2023
    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:

    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).
    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:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Conversion_on_the_Way_to_Damascus-Caravaggio_%28c.1600-1%29.jpg

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Oct 9 10:32:53 2023
    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"
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Mon Oct 9 10:37:05 2023
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:12:20 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 9:00:05 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"||^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 Lorentz
    transformations.
    and show your work using kilograms, seconds, and meters
    What "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
    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 elementary
    property of tensors is that if a tensor equation is satisfied in one coordinate system it is satisfied in all.)
    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. You've actually been given highly concise primers on all these subjects (you're welcome)... and you've ignored them.

    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.

    You just don't get it, do you Legion. Show! Don't tell. Mimesis, not diegesis.

    Legion, I believe the straight-talking Laurence Clark Crossen is the most appropriate denizen of this forum to deal with your word salad, smothered in Kook dressing and garnished with rotten relativity. I'm sure he will give you the full Chef Ramsey
    treatment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Oct 9 10:41:03 2023
    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:

    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.
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Oct 9 11:54:59 2023
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 6:20:41 AM 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"||^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 Lorentz
    transformations.

    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 system
    of coordinates. You're welcome.

    I 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
    coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored the
    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
    carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.

    Now, 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 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 covered
    this before. Which part don't you understand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Mon Oct 9 12:14:05 2023
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:55:01 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 6:20:41 AM 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"||^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 Lorentz
    transformations.

    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
    system of coordinates. You're welcome.

    I 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
    coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored the
    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
    carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.
    Now, 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
    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 covered
    this before.

    Precious--

    Which part don't you understand?

    All of it. Just like you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Oct 9 16:09:54 2023
    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"||^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 Lorentz
    transformations.

    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
    system of coordinates. You're welcome.

    I 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 coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored the
    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
    carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.
    Now, 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 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
    covered this before. Which part 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
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Oct 10 05:07:54 2023
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    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"||^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
    Lorentz transformations.

    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
    system of coordinates. You're welcome.

    I 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 coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored the
    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
    carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.
    Now, 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 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
    covered this before. Which part 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
    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?

    Gary Harnagel, Legion, Professor Paul, Tom Roberts...I now drop my swagger and beseech you--any one of you--to publish your equation (or anyone else's equation) for how the spacetime curvature (either inner or outer or both) in the vicinity of a
    gravitating body varies with relative velocity. It will be an invaluable research tool for me. I do not want adumbrations of said equation, no. I want a precise mathematical expression of said equation that can be used to yield numerical results.
    Those results can be tensors, vectors or scalers. Said equation can be derived from the EFEs or of entirely independent origin. I will pay any price for said equation. 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 10 06:08:47 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 10 06:53:42 2023
    On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:07:56 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 4:09:56 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    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"||^
    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
    Lorentz transformations.

    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
    system of coordinates. You're welcome.

    I 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 coordinates. The gamma factor that you are missing was explained to you long ago. You simply ignored the
    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
    carefully and patiently explained to you many times before.
    Now, 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 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
    covered this before. Which part 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 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?

    [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)

    There is no such thing as inner or outer curvature. There is intrinsic and extrinsic curvature. If you had a genuine interest in the subject, you would learn this. You obviously can't understand either intrinsic and extrinsic curvature if you don't
    even know what those things are. Right?

    Look, you've already been given the extrinsic curvature of the earth's trajectory. Again, 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 intrinsic curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 - ||p'||^2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. As you can see, this scalar is manifestly invariant under the coordinate transformation, i.e., it has the same value when calculated in
    terms of either system of coordinates.

    As to how the 256 covariant components of the Riemann tensor representing the extrinsic curvature of spacetime vary when transformed from one x,y,z,t coordinate system x1,x2,x3,x4 to another y1,y2,y3,y4, those components are given by

    R'_abcd = (dxu/dya)(dxv/dyb)(dxm/dyc)(dxn/dyd) R_uvmn

    where, as usual, summation over repeated indices is implied, and where the "d" represent partial derivatives. Do you understand this? Of course you don't.

    It will be an invaluable research tool for me.

    Nope. You would need at least a rudimentary understanding of physics and non-negative mathematical aptitude and at least some intellectual integrity to have any hope at all of being able to understand what you've just been told. Or you could listen to
    the careful and patient explanations that have been provided to you at your level.

    I will pay any price for said equation. Just name it.

    Okay, the price for giving you the exact equations that you requested is for you to go back and read the explanations that have been provided to you, and state honestly and truthfully what part you don't understand, and then pay attention to the answers
    and thereby actually learn the answers to your questions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 10 11:56:14 2023
    On 10/10/2023 8:07 AM, patdolan wrote:

    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.

    Why are you excluding myself? Did I shoot down your silly gedanken in
    flames? Funny, I don't remember participating in this gedanken much, and
    many of those you "invited" already shot it down in flames as well.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 10 09:47:25 2023
    On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:07:56 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    Please teach me the equation for how the spacetime curvature (either inner
    or outer or both)...

    There is no such thing as inner or outer curvature. There is intrinsic and extrinsic curvature, and you've already been given the equations for both. Here they are again:

    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 extrinsic curvature of the trajectory at q is sqrt(||p'*p"||^2 - ||p'|
    |^2 ||p"||^2)/||p'||^3. As you can see, this scalar is manifestly invariant under the coordinate transformation, i.e., it has the same value when calculated in terms of either system of coordinates.

    The 256 covariant components of the Riemann tensor representing the intrinsic curvature of spacetime vary when transformed from one x,y,z,t coordinate system x1,x2,x3,x4 to another y1,y2,y3,y4 according to the relations

    R'_abcd = (dxu/dya)(dxv/dyb)(dxm/dyc)(dxn/dyd) R_uvmn

    where, as usual, summation over repeated indices is implied, and where the "d" represent partial derivatives. Do you understand this? Of course you don't.

    It will be an invaluable research tool for me.

    Nope. You would need at least a rudimentary understanding of physics and non-negative mathematical aptitude, and (most importantly) at least some intellectual integrity to have any hope at all of being able to understand what you've just been told. You
    possess none of those things.

    I will pay any price for said equation. Just name it.

    Okay, for giving you the exact equations that you requested, go back and read the explanations that have been provided to you, and state honestly and truthfully what part you don't understand, and ask any questions you may have, and then pay attention to
    the answers and thereby actually learn the answers to your questions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 10 12:10:09 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Tue Oct 10 18:09:54 2023
    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 the
    trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air.

    I *was* going to ask Bill if he could take me through a derivation leading to Weber's equation,
    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 contraction
    velocity? Tell me, if you know and have understanding. Who discovered the Lorentz superluminal
    displacements?

    Several researchers have proposed superluminal frames, certainly not you, but I doubt if they have
    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 me
    if you can.

    Weber told you that you're wrong.

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 10 18:37:48 2023
    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.

    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 the
    trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air.
    I *was* going to ask Bill if he could take me through a derivation leading to Weber's equation,
    but your clumsy interference has made that impossible because it would like I was challenging
    him. Thanks a lot, Dolatroll!

    Fine. I give the talking stick to Legion. He may proceed with your request, unmolested. I'm truly interested.


    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?
    Several researchers have proposed superluminal frames, certainly not you, but I doubt if they have
    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 me
    if you can.
    Weber told you that you're wrong.
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Oct 11 10:55:32 2023
    On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:37:50 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
    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.

    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 the
    trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air.
    I *was* going to ask Bill if he could take me through a derivation leading to Weber's equation,
    but your clumsy interference has made that impossible because it would like I was challenging
    him. Thanks a lot, Dolatroll!
    Fine. I give the talking stick to Legion. He may proceed with your request, unmolested. I'm truly interested.
    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?
    Several researchers have proposed superluminal frames, certainly not you, but I doubt if they have
    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 me
    if you can.
    Weber told you that you're wrong.
    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?

    Well Gary Harnagel? Where have your relativity heroes gone? It's been 48 hours and not a sign of either Roberts or Legion. They've deserted you. This puts me in mind of that chapter of the Confessions, where the Manichaeans exhort Augustine to wait
    for the arrival of Bishop Faustus, the greatest living interpreter of Mani at the time, who will answer all of Augustine's growing doubts about Manichaeism. When Augustine finally gets his chance to questions Faustus, he finds Faustus empty of any true
    wisdom or knowledge--just a shallow phony.

    This is your situation vis a vis Roberts and Legion. They can't even provide you a GR calculation for the normal force of a brick on a tabletop or the trajectory of a relativist's head tossed into the air. I am expending more than the normal amount of
    effort, trying to save your scientific soul Gary Harnagel. But you need to star cooperating.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Oct 11 20:42:56 2023
    On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 11:55:34 AM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:

    [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.

    They don't like being harried by a relativity denier.

    They've deserted you.

    No, Pat, they deserted YOU. I didn't ask them to get involved.

    [Dishonest comparison deleted].

    Speaking of Faustus:

    Scarce have I taken my position here
    When there behind I see a guest appear.
    I know him, he is of the school newfounded,
    And his presumption will be quite unbounded.
    -- Goethe, Faust

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