Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74cThe giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.
So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gammato the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.
Incorrect relativistic doppler: f = c/g(c-u)T_o
Correct relativistic doppler: f =cg/g(c-u)T_o = c/(c-u)T_o -> f = f_o [ c + u ]/[ c - u ]
And no physicist has during more than a century noticed
this glaring error in SR! Amazing, isn't it?
Den 05.11.2023 04:27, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.
Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c
The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.The giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
the speed of an arbitrary observer relative to an object, can
affect the observed object.
Here you claim that what the moving source observes
can change the distances in the observers rest frame!!
So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gamma
Nonsense.
The measurement of the wavelength is done in the receiver's rest frame.
You don't have to use any theory to measure a distance in your rest
frame. The distance is what you measure it to be.
But you have to use a theory to calculate what the period
would be when measured in the rest frame of the source.
According to Newton the measured T = T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/T₀) = (c/(c-u))⋅f₀
According to SR the measured T = γ⋅T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/γ⋅T₀) = √((c+u)/(c-u))⋅f₀
You have over and over claimed that according to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object Big Ben.
If SR had claimed such a thing, you would never have heard of it.
Of obvious reasons!
Incorrect relativistic doppler: f = c/g(c-u)T_o
Correct relativistic doppler: f =cg/g(c-u)T_o = c/(c-u)T_o -> f = f_o [ c + u ]/[ c - u ]
And no physicist has during more than a century noticed
this glaring error in SR! Amazing, isn't it?
https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.
Den 05.11.2023 04:27, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c
The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.
The giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
the speed of an arbitrary observer relative to an object, can
affect the observed object.
Here you claim that what the moving source observes
can change the distances in the observers rest frame!!
So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gamma
Nonsense.
The measurement of the wavelength is done in the receiver's rest frame.
You don't have to use any theory to measure a distance in your rest
frame. The distance is what you measure it to be.
But you have to use a theory to calculate what the period
would be when measured in the rest frame of the source.
According to Newton the measured T = T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/T₀) = (c/(c-u))⋅f₀
According to SR the measured T = γ⋅T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/γ⋅T₀) = √((c+u)/(c-u))⋅f₀
Agreed. But who gave Lorentz contraction permission to skip the haircut while it's Siamese twin, time dilation, sits down in the barber's chair for its mandatory cut?
The world of physics arbitrarily decided "let's ehf with this wave's period but leave its length alone.The Big Dipper Doppler.
You could with just as much justification derive a new relativists doppler that only depends on Lorentz contraction while leaving the period unchanged. In fact, I may just perform that derivation. Now what should I call it...lemeseee...I've got it!
Regards,
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:gamma to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 05.11.2023 04:27, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c
The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.
The giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
the speed of an arbitrary observer relative to an object, can
affect the observed object.
Here you claim that what the moving source observes
can change the distances in the observers rest frame!!
So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second
The Big Dipper Doppler.Nonsense.
The measurement of the wavelength is done in the receiver's rest frame. >> You don't have to use any theory to measure a distance in your rest
frame. The distance is what you measure it to be.
But you have to use a theory to calculate what the period
would be when measured in the rest frame of the source.
According to Newton the measured T = T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/T₀) = (c/(c-u))⋅f₀
According to SR the measured T = γ⋅T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/γ⋅T₀) = √((c+u)/(c-u))⋅f₀
Agreed. But who gave Lorentz contraction permission to skip the haircut while it's Siamese twin, time dilation, sits down in the barber's chair for its mandatory cut?Thanks for yet again confirming the giant gap in your logic.
The world of physics arbitrarily decided "let's ehf with this wave's period but leave its length alone.
You could with just as much justification derive a new relativists doppler that only depends on Lorentz contraction while leaving the period unchanged. In fact, I may just perform that derivation. Now what should I call it...lemeseee...I've got it!
Regards,I can understand why you make no attempt to defend your belief:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:much faster rate.
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
I can understand why you make no attempt to defend your belief:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:much faster rate.
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a
On 11/6/2023 6:1much faster rate.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a
WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:much faster rate.
On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a
WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:a much faster rate.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed >>>>>> object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at
WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless >> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be nothing to compare his age to.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:a much faster rate.
On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed >>>>>>>> object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at
That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks oneWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless >>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to thatoriginal conception-event in spacetime.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:at a much faster rate.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed >>>>>>>> object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age
original conception-event in spacetime.That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks oneWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless >>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock >>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be >> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be >> nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for aVolroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
I suppose) as each other.
On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:a much faster rate.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed >>>>>> object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at
WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless >> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
second per second
Once upon a time twins were born to wealthy mother and father. The twins were the only children of the wealthy parents. One day the more fiendish of the twins over heard his father on the phone with his lawyer. The father was instructing the lawyerto structure his will as follows. Not a penny was to be dispersed to either twin whilst both were still alive. All the money was to go to the surviving twin after the death of one of them.
The fiendish twin considered murder but decided it was too risky. After reading Einstein's theory of special relativity the fiendish twin realized that he could legally and easily insure that his brother died first by simply acquiring motion relativeto his twin. So he took an Einsteinian trip out and back that took 20 years. When he got back he learned that his twin had been dead for 40 years. Thus, the fiendish twin's Einsteinian inheritance plan worked and he got all the money.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:at a much faster rate.
On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed >>>>>>>>>> object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age
original conception-event in spacetime.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin'sThat is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks oneWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless >>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock >>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be >>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be >>>> nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:age at a much faster rate.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed >>>>>>>>>> object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother
original conception-event in spacetime.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin'sThat is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks oneWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock >>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't >> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in >> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares >> what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with theWhy would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson. >> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so >> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so, >> I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
[snip]
And the point of this is...?
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:age at a much faster rate.
On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed >>>>>>>>>>>> object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother
original conception-event in spacetime.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin'sThat is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one >>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be >>>>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be >>>>>> nothing to compare his age to.WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock >>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't >>>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in >>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares >>>> what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
[snip]Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are >>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a >>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson. >>>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so >>>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so, >>>> I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
And the point of this is...?
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to thelatter.
On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:age at a much faster rate.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother
original conception-event in spacetime.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's >>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn'tThat is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one >>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would beWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock >>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected. >>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in >>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
latter.[snip]Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are >>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a >>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will >>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so, >>>> I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
And the point of this is...?
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
twin to die.
Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the
You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through spacetime.
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with thetwins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:age at a much faster rate.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother
original conception-event in spacetime.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's >>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn'tThat is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one >>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would beWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock >>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected. >>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in >>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
latter.[snip]Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are >>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a >>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will >>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so, >>>> I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
And the point of this is...?
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
twin to die.
Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the
You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through spacetime.
Den 09.11.2023 06:53, skrev patdolan:twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the
Let's have a look at a real experiment,
the Hafele & Keating experiment.
On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 07:04:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote:age at a much faster rate.
On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother
original conception-event in spacetime.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's >>>>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't >>>>>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected. >>>>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one >>>>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would beWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock >>>>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in >>>>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares >>>>>> what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
latter.No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other[snip]Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are >>>>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a >>>>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson. >>>>>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so >>>>>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will >>>>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so, >>>>>> I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
And the point of this is...?
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
twin to die.
Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the
You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
spacetime.
Gedanken = fabricated.
BTW. Let's extend it a little bit. Suppose the twins were born
2200-01-01. One of them (male) started the trip 2210-01-01.
Returned 2220-01-01 (as seen by the other, female) after
3300 days of his "proper time".
Do they agree about the date? What was the date of return
seen by the male?
Then they had a child, born 2222-01-01 (seen by female).
What is the birthdate seen by the child?
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:04:32 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:latter.
On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the otherAnd the point of this is...?
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
twin to die.
Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the
biological age. I get to choose."You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
spacetime.
Traveling twin: "In this Einsteinian universe in which my twin brother and I live, it is within my power to make my twin brother die of natural causes before I die of natural causes. Or to have us both die of natural causes at approximately the same
On 11/9/2023 2:47 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:brother age at a much faster rate.
On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 07:04:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object.
Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin
original conception-event in spacetime.Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's >>>>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn'tThat is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one >>>>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would beWTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
nothing to compare his age to.
Volroney,
Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected. >>>>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
what you think.
A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that
latter.No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other[snip]Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
short period their worldlines were identical.
This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will >>>>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
And the point of this is...?
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
twin to die.
Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the
You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the >> usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
spacetime.
Gedanken = fabricated.That will be a problem in the future.
BTW. Let's extend it a little bit. Suppose the twins were born
2200-01-01. One of them (male) started the trip 2210-01-01.
Returned 2220-01-01 (as seen by the other, female) after
3300 days of his "proper time".
Do they agree about the date? What was the date of return
seen by the male?
I would say that likely calendars etc. will be earth based and some sort
of special rules will be needed for such travelers.
Again, it will depend on how time laws are redone in the future, but it seems rather irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is what should
the returned traveling twin list as his age if his birth is, say, 20
years ago but he aged only 19 years on his return because he experienced
19 years of proper time.
On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 13:05:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
Den 09.11.2023 06:53, skrev patdolan:
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the
Let's have a look at a real experiment,
the Hafele & Keating experiment.
Why not take a look at real GPS instead? Its
clocks were prepared by professionals, not by
religious maniacs indoctrinated by an
insane guru.
On 11/9/2023 9:24 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 13:05:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 09.11.2023 06:53, skrev patdolan:
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with
Let's have a look at a real experiment,
the Hafele & Keating experiment.
Why not take a look at real GPS instead? ItsThe GPS was designed to take into account that it will experience 86400.000038 seconds of time during the period the geoid observer experiences 86400.000000 seconds.
clocks were prepared by professionals, not by
religious maniacs indoctrinated by an
insane guru.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:55:50 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,117 |