Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously throughout the universe?

Consider the distant observer in the Big Ben Paradox. In the standard telling of the BBP the distant observer is already traveling at .867c. But consider the distant observer at rest wrt the solar system and 2 light years away. The distant observer
then quickly acquires a velocity of .867c relative to the solar system, as in the standard telling.

If the Principle of Relativity acts instantaneously then the distant observer will notice the slowing of the earth's orbital velocity after 1.133 years of the distant observer's proper time.

However, if the Principle of Relativity travels at the speed of light then the distant observer will not notice the slowing of the earth's orbital velocity until 1.9 years have passed for the distant observer.

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

On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:

Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
throughout the universe?

The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
known to only be valid LOCALLY.

[... more nonsense]

Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
to speed up, to this accelerating observer.

Tom Roberts

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

Den 08.12.2023 20:50, skrev patdolan:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:

On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:

Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
throughout the universe?

The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
known to only be valid LOCALLY.

[... more nonsense]

Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
to speed up, to this accelerating observer.

Tom Roberts

Now go to the part of the story where the planets start to slow down, along with all the clocks located on those planets.

What about the paradox that you can make a train whistle
change frequency just by observing the train as it passes?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On 12/8/23 1:50 PM, patdolan wrote:

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:

On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:

Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
throughout the universe?

The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which
is known to only be valid LOCALLY.

[... more nonsense]

Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and
accelerating toward it. They are continuously observing the solar
system via light emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the
Doppler shift increases correspondingly, and they observe that
LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows the planets speeding up (and
getting more blueshifted). Of course this observer does not affect
the solar system in any way: the planets themselves do not change
speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS to speed up, to this
accelerating observer.

Tom Roberts

Now go to the part of the story where the planets start to slow
down, along with all the clocks located on those planets.

There is no such "part" of any story. No matter how the distant observer
moves, or how they measure the solar system and its planets, they cannot possibly make "the planets start to slow down, along with all the
clocks" -- that is just YOU MISUNDERSTANDING RELATIVITY.

Tom Roberts

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

On 12/8/23 8:54 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:

Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
to speed up, to this accelerating observer.

The really interesting and important question is NOT about what the
images transmitted from the distant person tell the receiving object.
That information is old and extremely out-of-date, and really not of
much importance.

What the observing person REALLY wants to know is "what is the age of
that distant person "right now"? I.e., the most important and
interesting thing in special relativity is "NOW at a distance".

And "NOW at a distance" is important for accelerating observers as well
as for inertial observers ... it is important to understand how to
determine it for BOTH types of observers.

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

On 12/9/23 2:14 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

The really interesting and important question is NOT about what the
images transmitted from the distant person tell the receiving object.
That information is old and extremely out-of-date, and really not of
much importance.

What the observing person REALLY wants to know is "what is the age of
that distant person "right now"?  I.e., the most important and
interesting thing in special relativity is "NOW at a distance".

And "NOW at a distance" is important for accelerating observers as well
as for inertial observers ... it is important to understand how to
determine it for BOTH types of observers.

Since Tom Roberts hasn't responded to my above question "What is the age
of that distant person right now?", I'll answer it for him.

For an observer, whose current age is t1, and who is stationary in any arbitrary (but specified) inertial reference frame, the current age t2
of some specified distant person (she) is just what the observer (he), stationary in that inertial frame, who happens to be momentarily
co-located with her when he is age t1, says her age is then.

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

On 12/10/23 9:48 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

On 12/9/23 2:14 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

Since Tom Roberts hasn't responded to my above question "What is the age
of that distant person right now?", I'll answer it for him.

For an observer (call him Tom), whose current age is t1, and who is stationary in any
arbitrary (but specified) inertial reference frame, the current age t2
of some specified distant person (she) is just what the observer (he), stationary in that inertial frame, who happens to be momentarily
co-located with her when he is age t1, says her age is then.

And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result, he
will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is 186,000
miles per second. So he (Tom Roberts) will be rejecting Special
Relativity itself.

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

On 12/10/23 11:39 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result, he
will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is 186,000
miles per second.

Because the only thing that the observers in that inertial reference
frame used to synchronize all of their clocks (which is the only thing
they use to determine the distant person's age) is that the speed of any
light pulse is 186,000 miles per second.

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

I'm getting worried about Tom Roberts. He's never been this
unresponsive in the many decades that I've known him. Something's wrong.

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

On 12/10/23 6:32 PM, patdolan wrote:

Owhen Tom Roberts says that a particular theory (any theory) is known
to be valid only locally, he is admitting that it is falsified
globally.

Yes.

please remember that the Truth is true globally.

The "Truth", as you mean it, is forever hidden to us humans.

All we can do is make models and successively improve them as new
observations are made. Every model inherently has a limited domain in
which it is applicable, and at present we know that the local laws of
physics are quantum in nature, but how to generalize them to global laws
is not at all known; nor is it known how to apply quantum concepts to gravitation....

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. Your GUESSES are wrong.

Tom Roberts

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

On 12/9/23 3:14 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

The really interesting and important question is NOT about what the
images transmitted from the distant person tell the receiving
object. That information is old and extremely out-of-date, and really
not of much importance.

But it is what the observer (your "receiving object") sees. Yes, this is
not of much importance.

What the observing person REALLY wants to know is "what is the age
of that distant person "right now"? I.e., the most important and
interesting thing in special relativity is "NOW at a distance".

Only to someone like you who has obsessed over this for decades. To the
rest of us, we recognize that no matter how one answers that question,
the result is conventional, and different conventions yield different
answers.

IOW: there is no definitive answer to that question, there are only
OPINIONS.

And of course this simultaneity at a distance does not appear in any
model of physics. It is just idle speculation by people who should know
better.

My OPINION is that the most appropriate "current age of a distant
person" is the age they have in their own rest frame, extended to the
location of the distant observer. This, of course, ignores the
difficulties inherent in doing that extension....

And "NOW at a distance" is important for accelerating observers as
well as for inertial observers ... it is important to understand how
to determine it for BOTH types of observers.

Accelerating observers have even less need for this information -- there
are more possible conventions, and thus more possible answers.

For them, I hold the same OPINION as above.

Since Tom Roberts hasn't responded to my above question "What is the
age of that distant person right now?", I'll answer it for him.

DON'T DO THAT!!! You are not competent to answer for me. What you
"think" I would say is utterly ridiculous.

I have repeatedly said this sort of question is useless, meaningless, or
both. And I have repeatedly given my OPINION for this
useless/meaningless question.

For an observer, whose current age is t1, and who is stationary in
any arbitrary (but specified) inertial reference frame, the current
age t2 of some specified distant person (she) is just what the
observer (he), stationary in that inertial frame, who happens to be momentarily co-located with her when he is age t1, says her age is
then.

This is utterly useless, as an observer far away from earth will not
have a co-moving assistant at t2. The only exception is if the distant
observer is essentially at rest in the same inertial frame as the earth
[#], in which case the answer is trivial and obvious.

[#] The earth, of course, is not at rest in any
inertial frame. But conceptually, with speeds
approaching c involved, the inertial frame of the
solar-system barycenter is close enough for all
practical purposes.

And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result,
he will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is
186,000 miles per second. So he (Tom Roberts) will be rejecting
Special Relativity itself.

Such nonsense YOU write. Sure, an inertial observer could use the
simultaneity of their rest frame, or the simultaneity of earth's rest
frame [3]. But still, the result is not useful, especially in the sense
that such a result does not appear in any law of physics (all of which
are LOCAL).

I'm getting worried about Tom Roberts. He's never been this
unresponsive in the many decades that I've known him. Something's
wrong.

Worry about yourself, not me. I have been very busy.

Tom Roberts

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

On 12/11/23 10:49 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:

[...]


All of your misguided conclusions about inertial reference frames in
special relativity stem from a single mistake: you've apparently never
really understood what Einstein showed us about inertial reference frames.

Einstein showed us how all the clocks in a given inertial reference
frame can be synchronized. The people stationary in the given frame
start out by knowing that all the clocks in their frame tick at the same
rate. They can then use the FACT, that the speed of any light pulse in
their frame is 186,000 miles per second, to synchronize all their clocks
.. i.e., so that at any instant in that frame, all their clocks display
the same time . And we can also specify that stationary and co-located
with each clock in that frame is a human observer ... call him the
"helper" for that clock.

THEN, if the people stationary in the given inertial frame want to know
the age of a specific distant person at some arbitrary (but specified)
instant on the given clocks in their frame (say, time t1 in their
frame), all they need to do is ask the particular helper, who happens to
be momentarily co-located with the the distant person when that helper's
watch reads t1, what the distant person's age was then. That helper can determine the answer to that question merely by looking at her, because
they are momentarily eye-to-eye then.

The point is, the question of the current age of a distance person is
NOT discretionary for anyone stationary in the given inertial frame ...
they MUST use the answer obtained above. Any OTHER answer requires that
the speed of light in the given frame CAN'T be 186,000 miles per second,
and if THAT is true, then special relativity isn't true.

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

On 12/11/23 12:39 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 9:55:54 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:

The "Truth", as you mean it, is forever hidden to us humans.

Then how can you talk about it.

I don't. I discuss MODELS, not "Truth".

Prove it is an unknown.

Just look at all the models we have.

Science claims it has the truth...

No. You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

Tom Roberts

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

On 12/11/23 3:55 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

On 12/11/23 10:49 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:

[...]

All of your misguided conclusions about inertial reference frames in
special relativity stem from a single mistake: you've apparently
never really understood what Einstein showed us about inertial
reference frames.

Nonsense. My conclusions are not "misguided", and I understand fully
what Einstein showed.

Einstein showed us how all the clocks in a given inertial reference
frame can be synchronized.

Sure.

THEN, if the people stationary in the given inertial frame want to
know the age of a specific distant person at some arbitrary (but
specified) instant on the given clocks in their frame (say, time t1
in their frame), all they need to do is ask the particular helper,
who happens to be momentarily co-located with the the distant person
when that helper's watch reads t1, what the distant person's age was
then. That helper can determine the answer to that question merely
by looking at her, because they are momentarily eye-to-eye then.

Sure, _IF_ there is such a helper at that location. But it is only in
your fantasy world that such a helper will be available to a distant
observer moving with an appreciable fraction of c relative to earth.
Indeed the only frame in which I can imagine such a helper is in the
rest frame of earth [#], and it will take a long time to communicate
with them.

[#] At that scale the earth is essentially at rest in
the inertial frame of the solar system barycenter.

[... insisting on using a specific frame just because he wishes it]

In the imaginary distant future in which spacefaring is possible at
speeds approaching c, such astronauts will know that the question "How
old are people on earth right now? (Really "what year is it now on
earth?") has meaning only when they are at rest in the same inertial
frame as earth. Even then they must make approximations and ignore MANY
issues. Necessarily they will need to use information available in their
ship to compute the answer, which means they must keep track of their
speed relative to earth's rest frame, and use that to compute how their
clock accumulate time compared to clocks on earth.

Tom Roberts

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

On 12/14/23 1:47 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

you (Tom Roberts) said:

Sure, _IF_ there is such a helper at that location.

All that matters is that there COULD be such a helper who can eventually report the distant person's age "right now", to everyone stationary in
that inertial frame.

So you admit that you are just discussing a fantasy world.

Tom Roberts

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

you (Tom Roberts) said:

Sure, _IF_ there is such a helper at that location.

All that matters is that there COULD be such a helper who can eventually
report the distant person's age "right now", to everyone stationary in
that inertial frame.

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

I (Mike Fontenot) said:

"All that matters is that there COULD be such a helper who can
eventually report the distant person's age "right now", to everyone
stationary in that inertial frame."

And you (Tom Roberts) said:

"So you admit that you are just discussing a fantasy world."

and I (Mike Fontenot) respond:

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about there. There
COULD actually be a helper, who is stationary in the given inertial
frame, and who is momentarily co-located with the distant person (she)
when he (the helper) is age "t1" and she is age "tau1", and he can
eventually communicate that information to all the other people who are
also stationary in his inertial reference frame. It's NOT a fantasy ...
it COULD happen.

And that age for her, according to them, MUST be correct, because it is
based ONLY on the assumption that the speed of light is 186,000 miles
per second in their frame. If that assumption is wrong, then special relativity is wrong.

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

I (Mike Fontenot) give this followup to my last post:

The value of the previous analysis (where the helper [he] in the given
inertial frame who is momentarily co-located with the distant person
[the home twin, her] can determine her current age by just looking at
her, since they are eye-to-eye at that instant) is that it shows that if
we reject the result that it gives, then that implies that a light pulse
in that inertial frame CANNOT have the speed 186,000 miles per second,
which then implies that special relativity is incorrect.

But that method is NOT an easy way for us to determine what the home
twin's age IS (according to the people in that inertial frame) at that
instant. The easiest way to determine the home twin's age, according to
the helpers (and the traveling twin) in that inertial frame at that
instant in their lives, is to use the time dilation equation (TDE). The
TDE says that, according to anyone in that inertial frame (i.e., the
traveling twin's outbound inertial frame), the home twin will be ageing
slower that the people in the outbound inertial frame, by the gamma
factor. So, if the outbound speed is 0.866c, then the traveling twin,
and all his helpers, say that the home twin is ageing only half as fast
as he and they are ageing. So if his current age is t1, he knows that
her current age is tau1 = t1 / 2.0.

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

The material that we've been discussing above is elementary. Much more interesting is what special relativity says about the conclusions of
separated people who are undergoing identical (as confirmed by
accelerometers) finite accelerations. The answer is that the person on
the trailing rocket will conclude that the leading rocket maintains a
constant separation ahead of the trailing rocket.

Many people still believe that the separation INCREASES in that
scenario, according to the person on the trailing rocket. That belief
comes from mutually-contradictory statements in Bell's Spaceship
paradox, as given in the webpage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox .

That webpage makes two mutually-contradictory claims:

First, that the two rockets maintain the same separation, according to
the initial inertial observers, and secondly,
that the two rockets are identically constructed, and thus produce the
same thrust and acceleration when ignited, according to the people on
the trailing rocket. Those two statements can't both be simultaneously
true. If the first statement is true, then the second statement is
false: the two accelerometers can't have the same reading. The leading
rocket will be accelerating faster than trailing rocket, according to
the person on the trailing rocket.

I've written eleven papers (on viXra) on this subject, the first two
fairly long, and the latter ones fairly short. You can find them on viXra:

https://vixra.org

by searching on my full name: "Michael Leon Fontenot". They can be
downloaded (in PDF form) at no charge.

You can also get the two long papers separately on Amazon, and a third
paper on Amazon that contains all of the short papers. They aren't
free, but only cost about $7 (not counting shipping and taxes, etc.) ...
that's just a dollar or so more than printing costs. To find them, you
can just search on Amazon for my full name. (The fourth monograph
returned in that search, "A New Simultaneity Method for Accelerated
Observers in Special Relativity", is now known to be incorrect ... it's
only value is in providing some comfort to those people who can't
tolerate the instantaneous ageing of the home twin, according to the
traveling twin when he instantaneously reverses course in the twin paradox).

The titles of the first two long monographs are

"An Inconsistency Between the Gravitational Time Dilation Equation and
the Twin Paradox"

and

"A New Gravitational Time Dilation Equation".

The third Amazon monograph is titled

"An Accelerated Array of Clocks in Special Relativity: A Meaningful
"NOW-at-a Distance” ",

and contains all the short papers.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at:

PhysicsFiddler@gmail.com

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

On 12/17/23 8:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

The string breaks everywhere at once.

The Bell scenario, and my scenario, are DIFFERENT scenarios.

In the Bell scenario, the string breaks, because the two rockets get
farther apart.

In my scenario (where the accelerometers on the two separated rockets
show the same [constant] readings), the string does NOT break, because
the separation between the two rockets doesn't change.

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

On 12/18/23 10:29 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

The Bell scenario, and my scenario, are DIFFERENT scenarios.

No, they aren't. You just keep making ambiguous statements without
realizing it, and then you interpret the ambiguities incorrectly.

In the Bell scenario, the string breaks, because the two rockets get
farther apart.

Note that in the Bell scenario the two rockets have identical proper accelerations (which can be constant, but need not be). They
successively get farther apart IN THEIR SUCCESSIVE INSTANTANEOUSLY
CO-MOVING INERTIAL FRAMES [#]. They remain the same distance apart IN
THEIR INITIAL INERTIAL FRAME. So it is essential that when using phrases
like "separation" or "farther apart" you specify the frame you are
using. YOU fail to do that and just confuse yourself (without realizing it).

[#] Bell avoids complexities by having the rockets cease
accelerating at identical proper times after take-off, so
they come to rest in the same final inertial frame.

In my scenario (where the accelerometers on the two separated rockets
show the same [constant] readings),

OK. This is just a different way of saying that the two rockets have
identical [constant] proper accelerations. That is THE SAME as the Bell scenario.

the string does NOT break, because the separation between the two
rockets doesn't change.

The separation does not change IN THEIR INITIAL INERTIAL FRAME. But the
string does not remain at rest in that frame, so this is IRRELEVANT.
They successively get farther apart IN THEIR SUCCESSIVE INSTANTANEOUSLY CO-MOVING INERTIAL FRAMES. That's where the string is [#], and it does
break.

You keep using phrases like "separation" and "farther apart" without
specifying in which frame they apply. This makes your statements
ambiguous, and YOU interpret them incorrectly. Such ambiguities confuse
both you and your readers. DON'T DO THAT! -- always specify the frame
when using any frame-dependent quantity.

I have told you this many times. It seems that you are unable to learn.
How sad.

Tom Roberts

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

On 12/18/23 11:16 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:

On 12/18/23 10:29 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

The Bell scenario, and my scenario, are DIFFERENT scenarios.

No, they aren't. You just keep making ambiguous statements without
realizing it, and then you interpret the ambiguities incorrectly.

They ARE different scenarios.

In the Bell scenario, the acceleration is such that the initial inertial observers say the separation of the two rockets is constant. In that
case, the separation of the two rockets HAS to be INCREASING according
to the people on the trailing rocket (and the accelerometers on the two
rockets will NOT show the same readings).

In my scenario, the two accelerometers on the rockets DO show identical
(and constant) readings, and the separation between the two rockets is constant, according to the people on the trailing rocket. And the
initial inertial observers will say that the two rockets are getting
closer to one another as the rockets move away.

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

On 12/18/23 2:28 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

In the Bell scenario, [...] the accelerometers on the two rockets
will NOT show the same readings).

YOU ARE WRONG. In Bell's spaceship paradox, accelerometers in the two
rockets read the same value. Here is Wikipedia's summary:

"Bell's spaceship paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity.
Two spaceships, which are initially at rest in some common inertial
reference frame are connected by a taut string. At time zero in the
common inertial frame, both spaceships start to accelerate, with a
constant proper acceleration g as measured by an on-board accelerometer. Question: does the string break - i.e. does the distance between the two spaceships increase?"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox_-_spaceships.png]

For those conditions, the spaceships' separation remains constant when
measured in their initial inertial frame, but in their successive instantaneously co-moving inertial frames they get successively further
apart, so the string breaks.

This is essentially the same scenario as yours. But both suffer from
ambiguous wordings....

I keep telling you this, and you keep ignoring what I write and continue
to generate nonsense.

Tom Roberts

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

You are forgetting the length contraction equation (LCE) of special
relativity. If a yardstick is moving away from an inertial observer,
the inertial observer will conclude that the yardstick is getting
shorter by the factor gamma. And if you run the experiment again, but
this time you remove the middle 34 inches of the yardstick, leaving only
the outer two inches, the LCE tells you that the two one-inch pieces of
the original yardstick will still get closer, by the same factor gamma.
And the two separated rockets (with accelerometers showing the same
constant readings) are like the two outer inches of what was once the yardstick: the two rockets will likewise will get closer together. So,
in the Bell scenario, where the initial inertial observers, by
definition, say the separation of the rockets is CONSTANT, that means
that the people on the trailing rocket will say that the leading rocket
is getting farther away, and the accelerometers do NOT show the same
reading.

So the Bell scenario IS different from my scenario, in which the
accelerometers show the same reading, and the separation between the
rockets is constant.

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

Tom Roberts wrote:

Sure, _IF_ there is such a helper at that location.
But it is only in your fantasy world that such a
helper will be available to a distant observer
moving with an appreciable fraction of c relative
to earth.

It seems to me that practically every relativity
problem assumes such an observer. It fact, the entire
grid is infested with these observers at every point.

But I have a question that relates somewhat to the
title of this thread:

Consider the early universe when all the mass, M, was
concentrated within a small volume. The Schwarzschild
radius is Rs = 2GM/c^2. Rs calculates to be many
quadrillions of light-years, much, much greater than
the size of the universe even now. So, did space, and
spacetime, exist out to Rs then? Or now?

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

On 2023-12-19 16:09:54 +0000, Mike Fontenot said:

You are forgetting the length contraction equation (LCE) of special relativity. If a yardstick is moving away from an inertial observer,
the inertial observer will conclude that the yardstick is getting
shorter by the factor gamma. And if you run the experiment again, but
this time you remove the middle 34 inches of the yardstick, leaving
only the outer two inches, the LCE tells you that the two one-inch
pieces of the original yardstick will still get closer, by the same
factor gamma. And the two separated rockets (with accelerometers
showing the same constant readings) are like the two outer inches of
what was once the yardstick: the two rockets will likewise will get
closer together. So, in the Bell scenario, where the initial inertial observers, by definition, say the separation of the rockets is
CONSTANT, that means that the people on the trailing rocket will say
that the leading rocket is getting farther away, and the accelerometers
do NOT show the same reading.

So the Bell scenario IS different from my scenario, in which the accelerometers show the same reading, and the separation between the
rockets is constant.

Yes. Bell's scenario is in an universe where special relativity is valid.
Your scenario requires a different universe where special relativity is
not valid.

Mikko

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