Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #595704 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-11-19 15:10 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-11-23 12:59 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 94 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 15:10 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 15:55 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 18:11 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 19:10 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 19:47 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:01 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 20:09 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:17 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 20:34 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 15:33 -0500
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 22:10 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-20 14:14 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 08:02 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 08:14 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 08:19 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 08:23 -0800
Imbecile Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 10:41 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-20 22:36 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 15:36 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 13:28 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 06:44 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 10:37 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 19:44 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 11:32 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 22:47 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 14:23 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 14:24 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-22 13:21 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-22 10:06 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-22 19:55 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-22 11:20 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 19:14 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 00:04 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 19:57 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 00:08 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-23 12:05 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 03:26 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-23 14:50 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 06:57 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 12:24 -0500
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 09:36 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-23 14:20 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 10:09 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-24 20:36 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-24 14:27 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-25 12:27 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-25 07:23 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-26 10:42 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-26 07:59 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-26 22:42 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-26 20:24 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-27 13:14 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-27 13:27 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 04:36 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-27 09:28 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-27 12:16 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 14:38 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-11-28 15:02 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 16:35 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-11-28 16:50 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 19:54 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 11:59 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-03 10:38 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> - 2022-11-29 18:07 +0000
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> - 2022-11-29 18:12 +0000
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-28 12:53 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-28 10:43 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-29 10:22 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 11:33 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 12:45 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-25 13:24 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan admits he's a clown "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 07:22 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 18:18 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 23:22 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 20:32 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:42 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:50 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-20 00:08 -0600
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 23:23 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-20 14:08 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 12:20 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 10:42 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-23 12:19 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 12:41 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 13:07 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 13:33 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 14:12 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 17:20 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 18:43 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-24 14:47 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-25 20:03 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-26 11:57 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 14:01 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 12:59 -0800
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-23 09:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36ae416c-c57a-4910-b679-a12850b014fbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596011 |
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 18:24:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 11/23/2022 6:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 12:05:13 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> Quite right. SR predicts: > >> > >> Measured in the inertial frame in which the observer is stationary, > >> the Earth will use two years to orbit the Sun once. > >> (A 'year' is 365.25*24*60*60 SI seconds) > > > > No, a 'year' is something else. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year > Sorry, janitor but the second has been defined by the Cs clock standard > since the 1960s, and other time units such as hours, years have been > defined in terms of the second. Sorry, stupid Mike, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year no, they weren't. And your ISO second idiocy was ignored by all timekeeping systems of the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-23 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tll6m4$cimp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595970 |
Den 23.11.2022 12:05, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > Den 22.11.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan: >> On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 10:55:18 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen >> wrote: >>> >>> You didn't address the question with a single word! >>> | Den 21.11.2022 15:44, skrev patdolan: >>> |> >>> |> If SR is true then the orbital velocity of the earth in >>> |> the clockwork solar system is frame dependent. Just like >>> |> the velocity of the hands of a clock are frame dependent. >>> |> Please confirm or deny this. >>> |> >>> I am confirming your statement, velocity IS frame dependent >>> in Newtonian mechanics, SR and GR. >>> >>> Does that make any of the theories inconsistent? >>> > >> You set lousy traps, Paul. You still seem to think that you are the >> preceptor and not the pupil. I am your teacher now. And you appear >> to be a very thick sculled student. >> >> What is frame dependent, according to SR, is time dilation. Orbital >> velocity and the velocity of clock hands are a consequent of this time >> dilation. This is easily explained, even to a dull student such as >> yourself. Consider and observer traveling at .866 c relative to the >> solar solar system. It goes without saying that the observer will >> note that all clocks on the earth will run at half the speed of the >> observer's onboard clock in accordance with SR. > > Quite right. SR predicts: > > Measured in the inertial frame in which the observer is stationary, > the Earth will use two years to orbit the Sun once. > (A 'year' is 365.25*24*60*60 SI seconds) > > The earthling Pat's clock will appear to run at half speed > when compared to the coordinate time of the observers rest frame. > (https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf) > >> This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide the >> earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two in its >> annual trip around the sun. > > The thick sculled student Paul would like the teacher Pat > to clarify this point. > > Does the teacher Pat Dolan claim that according to SR, the existence > of the moving observer above would make the earthling Pat's clock > run at half speed so that he would measure one orbit around > the sun to last two years? > OK, Pat, this trap was probably too obvious. You said that according to SR, the real duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun is 2 years, but you did NOT say that that a clock on the Earth would measure the duration to be 2 years. What you ARE saying is that according to SR, the earthling Pat would measure the duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun to be one year (as normal), and he would measure the orbital velocity of the Earth in the Solar system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). So, according to SR, Pat, who is unaware of the existence of the travelling observer, would have no way of knowing that his clock is running at half speed. Pat would think that everything was normal. Could we say that according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected by the existence of the travelling observer? Have I got it right now, teacher Pat? Or what ARE you saying? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-23 10:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7e213f3-d51c-490a-96a7-bf4a3263b673n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595985 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:20:07 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.11.2022 12:05, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > > Den 22.11.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan: > >> On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 10:55:18 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> You didn't address the question with a single word! > >>> | Den 21.11.2022 15:44, skrev patdolan: > >>> |> > >>> |> If SR is true then the orbital velocity of the earth in > >>> |> the clockwork solar system is frame dependent. Just like > >>> |> the velocity of the hands of a clock are frame dependent. > >>> |> Please confirm or deny this. > >>> |> > >>> I am confirming your statement, velocity IS frame dependent > >>> in Newtonian mechanics, SR and GR. > >>> > >>> Does that make any of the theories inconsistent? > >>> > > > >> You set lousy traps, Paul. You still seem to think that you are the > >> preceptor and not the pupil. I am your teacher now. And you appear > >> to be a very thick sculled student. > >> > >> What is frame dependent, according to SR, is time dilation. Orbital > >> velocity and the velocity of clock hands are a consequent of this time > >> dilation. This is easily explained, even to a dull student such as > >> yourself. Consider and observer traveling at .866 c relative to the > >> solar solar system. It goes without saying that the observer will > >> note that all clocks on the earth will run at half the speed of the > >> observer's onboard clock in accordance with SR. > > > > Quite right. SR predicts: > > > > Measured in the inertial frame in which the observer is stationary, > > the Earth will use two years to orbit the Sun once. > > (A 'year' is 365.25*24*60*60 SI seconds) > > > > The earthling Pat's clock will appear to run at half speed > > when compared to the coordinate time of the observers rest frame. > > (https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf) > > > >> This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide the > >> earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two in its > >> annual trip around the sun. > > > > The thick sculled student Paul would like the teacher Pat > > to clarify this point. > > > > Does the teacher Pat Dolan claim that according to SR, the existence > > of the moving observer above would make the earthling Pat's clock > > run at half speed so that he would measure one orbit around > > the sun to last two years? > > > OK, Pat, this trap was probably too obvious. > > You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > Earth orbit around the Sun is 2 years, but you did NOT > say that that a clock on the Earth would measure the duration > to be 2 years. > > What you ARE saying is that according to SR, the earthling Pat > would measure the duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun > to be one year (as normal), and he would measure the orbital > velocity of the Earth in the Solar system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). > > So, according to SR, Pat, who is unaware of the existence of > the travelling observer, would have no way of knowing that his clock > is running at half speed. Pat would think that everything was normal. > > Could we say that according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected > by the existence of the travelling observer? > > Have I got it right now, teacher Pat? > Or what ARE you saying? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Correct Paul. With one correction. Look at your first para: "You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > Earth orbit around th..." Your use of the word "real" is absolutely forbidden in SR. Albert would wag his finger and remonstrate with you that traveling at gamma = 2, an orbital velocity of 15Km/s is just as real to distant observer Paul as 30Km/s is to earthling Pat. Also, distant Paul observes that the big hand on earthling Pat's wristwatch only moves from 12 to 6 in the same interval it takes Paul's big hand to move from 12 to 12.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-24 20:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tloh4h$najc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596020 |
Den 23.11.2022 19:09, skrev patdolan: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:20:07 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 23.11.2022 12:05, skrev Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 22.11.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan: >>>> >>>> What is frame dependent, according to SR, is time dilation. >>>> Orbital velocity and the velocity of clock hands are a consequent >>>> of this time dilation. This is easily explained, even to a dull >>>> student such as yourself. Consider and observer traveling at .866 c >>>> relative to the solar solar system. It goes without saying that >>>> the observer will note that all clocks on the earth will run at half >>>> the speed of the observer's onboard clock in accordance with SR. >>>> >>>> This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide >>>> the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two >>>> in its annual trip around the sun. >>>> >>>> Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not >>>> an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling >>>> through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels >>>> in the solar system's rest frame. >>>> >> You said that according to SR, the real duration of one >> Earth orbit around the Sun is 2 years, but you did NOT >> say that that a clock on the Earth would measure the duration >> to be 2 years. >> >> What you ARE saying is that according to SR, the earthling Pat >> would measure the duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun >> to be one year (as normal), and he would measure the orbital >> velocity of the Earth in the Solar system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). >> >> So, according to SR, Pat, who is unaware of the existence of >> the travelling observer, would have no way of knowing that his clock >> is running at half speed. Pat would think that everything was normal. >> >> Could we say that according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected >> by the existence of the travelling observer? >> >> Have I got it right now, teacher Pat? >> Or what ARE you saying? > Correct Paul. With one correction. Look at your first para: > > "You said that according to SR, the real duration of one >> Earth orbit around th..." > > Your use of the word "real" is absolutely forbidden in SR. OK, so you never said: "Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels in the solar system's rest frame." And when you said: "This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two in its annual trip around the sun." .. then you did NOT mean that the earth REALLY had to travel slower by a factor or two and you did not mean that the earth clocks REALLY had to slow down by a factor of two to make the annual trip around the sun to last 1 year. So now we agree: According to SR, the earthling Pat would measure the duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun to be one year (as normal), and he would measure the orbital velocity of the Earth in the Solar system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). So according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected by the existence of the travelling observer. ---- Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect the observed object, but it can affect the observer's observations of the object. No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." Right Pat? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-24 14:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a524b975-58fd-4afe-8378-27d56e8c8a25n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596100 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 11:36:52 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.11.2022 19:09, skrev patdolan: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:20:07 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 23.11.2022 12:05, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > >>> Den 22.11.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan: > >>>> > >>>> What is frame dependent, according to SR, is time dilation. > >>>> Orbital velocity and the velocity of clock hands are a consequent > >>>> of this time dilation. This is easily explained, even to a dull > >>>> student such as yourself. Consider and observer traveling at .866 c > >>>> relative to the solar solar system. It goes without saying that > >>>> the observer will note that all clocks on the earth will run at half > >>>> the speed of the observer's onboard clock in accordance with SR. > >>>> > >>>> This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide > >>>> the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two > >>>> in its annual trip around the sun. > >>>> > >>>> Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not > >>>> an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling > >>>> through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels > >>>> in the solar system's rest frame. > >>>> > >> You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > >> Earth orbit around the Sun is 2 years, but you did NOT > >> say that that a clock on the Earth would measure the duration > >> to be 2 years. > >> > >> What you ARE saying is that according to SR, the earthling Pat > >> would measure the duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun > >> to be one year (as normal), and he would measure the orbital > >> velocity of the Earth in the Solar system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). > >> > >> So, according to SR, Pat, who is unaware of the existence of > >> the travelling observer, would have no way of knowing that his clock > >> is running at half speed. Pat would think that everything was normal. > >> > >> Could we say that according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected > >> by the existence of the travelling observer? > >> > >> Have I got it right now, teacher Pat? > >> Or what ARE you saying? > > Correct Paul. With one correction. Look at your first para: > > > > "You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > >> Earth orbit around th..." > > > > Your use of the word "real" is absolutely forbidden in SR. > OK, so you never said: > > "Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not > an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling > through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels > in the solar system's rest frame." > And when you said: > > "This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide > the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two > in its annual trip around the sun." > .. then you did NOT mean that the earth REALLY had to travel slower > by a factor or two and you did not mean that the earth clocks REALLY > had to slow down by a factor of two to make the annual trip around > the sun to last 1 year. > > So now we agree: > According to SR, the earthling Pat would measure the duration of > one Earth orbit around the Sun to be one year (as normal), and > he would measure the orbital velocity of the Earth in the Solar > system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). > So according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected > by the existence of the travelling observer. > > ---- > > Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > observations of the object. > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > Right Pat? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Paul, it appears that I am ever so slowly awakening you from the dreamscape that is relativity. You say: > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > observations of the object. > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > I say absolutely correct...but... Consider distant observer Paul traveling at a velocity of .866c relative to earthling Pat who happens to be standing at the base of Big Ben in London. Paul watches Big Ben through his powerful telescope and notices the following: 1) The little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. 2) The little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions in the time it takes Big Ben's little hand to make 730.5 revolutions. Do you agree with these two statements? If not, why not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-25 12:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tlq8qe$vbeq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596125 |
Den 24.11.2022 23:27, skrev patdolan:
> Paul, it appears that I am ever so slowly awakening you from the dreamscape that is relativity.
>
> You say:
>
>> The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect
>> the observed object, but it can affect the observer's
>> observations of the object.
>>
>> No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise.
>>
>
> I say absolutely correct...but...
>
> Consider distant observer Paul traveling at a velocity of .866c relative to earthling Pat who happens to be standing at the base of Big Ben in London. Paul watches Big Ben through his powerful telescope and notices the following:
>
> 1) The little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
Right.
Paul's state of motion doesn't affect Big Ben or the Earth in any way.
>
> 2) The little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions in the time it takes Big Ben's little hand to make 730.5 revolutions.
Paul's state of motion will affect Paul's OBSERVATIONS of Big Ben.
Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions
while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions.
>
> Do you agree with these two statements? If not, why not.
>
No.
Your 2) statement is plain wrong.
The word 'observe' has a special meaning in SR.
It does not mean to see with a telescope, because with a very
powerful telescope Paul would see that the little hand of Big Ben
makes 5452 revolutions while the little hand of his wristwatch
makes 1461 revolutions.
Observe means measure in a very special way. To make this measurement
Paul must have two co-moving clocks like this:
Paul C2 C1
--|------------|-------------------|-------------> x
0 ly 1.730ly
Let the distance between the clocks be 1.730ly
Event #1: Big Ben (BB) is adjacent to clock C1
==============================================
0.866c <- BB
Paul C2 C1
--|------------|-------------------|-------------> x
0 ly 1.730ly
Let BB show t₁'= 0 revolutions of small hand
Let Paul's clock show t₁ = 0 revolutions of small hand
(We begin counting the revolutions at this event)
Event #2: Big Ben (BB) is adjacent to clock C2
==============================================
0.866c <- BB
Paul C2 C1
--|------------|-------------------|-------------> x
0 ly 1.730ly
According to Paul must two years have passed
when BB is adjacent to clock C2, so
t₂ = 1461 revolutions of small hand
According to SR (Lorentz transform) BB will show:
t₂'= 730.5 revolutions of small hand
The apparent rate of BB observed by Paul is:
(t₂'-t₁')/(t₂-t₁) = 1/2
Note that (t₂'-t₁') is measured by one clock (a proper time),
while (t₂-t₁) is the difference between two clocks.
This is important, because it is NOT the rate of BB
compared to Paul's wristwatch.
It is obviously no practical way this measurement could
be done (in this case), so OBSERVE means what SR predicts would
have been measured if it had been a practical way to do it.
This phenomenon is called time dilation.
And note that time dilation is mutual!
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Above I said:
"Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions
while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions."
The following is equally correct:
"Big Ben will OBSERVE that the little hand of Paul's wristwatch
makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little hand makes
1461 revolutions."
That's why your 2) statement is wrong.
It makes no sense to say:
"The little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions in
the time it takes Big Ben's little hand to make 730.5 revolutions,
and the little hand of Big Ben makes 1461 revolutions in
the time it takes the little hand of Paul's wristwatch to make
730.5 revolutions."
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-25 07:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9e3ca67c-023c-47a0-ad32-91880ec6dfe3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596140 |
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:27:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.11.2022 23:27, skrev patdolan: > > Paul, it appears that I am ever so slowly awakening you from the dreamscape that is relativity. > > > > You say: > > > >> The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > >> the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > >> observations of the object. > >> > >> No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > >> > > > > I say absolutely correct...but... > > > > Consider distant observer Paul traveling at a velocity of .866c relative to earthling Pat who happens to be standing at the base of Big Ben in London. Paul watches Big Ben through his powerful telescope and notices the following: > > > > 1) The little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. > Right. > Paul's state of motion doesn't affect Big Ben or the Earth in any way. > > > > 2) The little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions in the time it takes Big Ben's little hand to make 730.5 revolutions. > Paul's state of motion will affect Paul's OBSERVATIONS of Big Ben. > Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions. > > > > Do you agree with these two statements? If not, why not. > > > No. > Your 2) statement is plain wrong. > > The word 'observe' has a special meaning in SR. > > It does not mean to see with a telescope, because with a very > powerful telescope Paul would see that the little hand of Big Ben > makes 5452 revolutions while the little hand of his wristwatch > makes 1461 revolutions. > > Observe means measure in a very special way. To make this measurement > Paul must have two co-moving clocks like this: > > Paul C2 C1 > --|------------|-------------------|-------------> x > 0 ly 1.730ly > > Let the distance between the clocks be 1.730ly > > Event #1: Big Ben (BB) is adjacent to clock C1 > ============================================== > > 0.866c <- BB > Paul C2 C1 > --|------------|-------------------|-------------> x > 0 ly 1.730ly > > Let BB show t₁'= 0 revolutions of small hand > Let Paul's clock show t₁ = 0 revolutions of small hand > (We begin counting the revolutions at this event) > > > Event #2: Big Ben (BB) is adjacent to clock C2 > ============================================== > > 0.866c <- BB > Paul C2 C1 > --|------------|-------------------|-------------> x > 0 ly 1.730ly > > According to Paul must two years have passed > when BB is adjacent to clock C2, so > t₂ = 1461 revolutions of small hand > According to SR (Lorentz transform) BB will show: > t₂'= 730.5 revolutions of small hand > > The apparent rate of BB observed by Paul is: > (t₂'-t₁')/(t₂-t₁) = 1/2 > > Note that (t₂'-t₁') is measured by one clock (a proper time), > while (t₂-t₁) is the difference between two clocks. > This is important, because it is NOT the rate of BB > compared to Paul's wristwatch. > > It is obviously no practical way this measurement could > be done (in this case), so OBSERVE means what SR predicts would > have been measured if it had been a practical way to do it. > > This phenomenon is called time dilation. > And note that time dilation is mutual! > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf > > Above I said: > "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." > > The following is equally correct: > "Big Ben will OBSERVE that the little hand of Paul's wristwatch > makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little hand makes > 1461 revolutions." > > That's why your 2) statement is wrong. > It makes no sense to say: > "The little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions in > the time it takes Big Ben's little hand to make 730.5 revolutions, > and the little hand of Big Ben makes 1461 revolutions in > the time it takes the little hand of Paul's wristwatch to make > 730.5 revolutions." > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ "It is obviously no practical way this measurement could be done (in this case), so OBSERVE means what SR predicts would have been measured if it had been a practical way to do it." I accept this. Let's summarize where we are in your rehabilitation. You have accepted the concept that with a relative velocity of .866c between them, and a practical means of performing the experiment, the little hand of Paul's wristwatch would make 1461 revolutions for every 730.5 revolutions that Big Ben's little hand made. In a reciprocal manner, from the viewpoint of Big Ben Paul's wristwatch would only make 730.5 revolutions for every 1461 revolutions of Big Bend's little hand. We now advance the argument. By accepting the above, you also perforce accept that from Paul's point of view the earth makes one revolution around the sun for every 1461 revolutions of the little hand on Paul's wrist watch. Do you agree with this? If not, why not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-26 10:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KblgL.1786240$vSy3.1150365@fx04.ams4> |
| In reply to | #596154 |
Den 25.11.2022 16:23, skrev patdolan: > On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:27:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> I said: >> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions >> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." >> >> The following is equally correct: >> "Big Ben will OBSERVE that the little hand of Paul's wristwatch >> makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little hand makes >> 1461 revolutions." >> > > We now advance the argument. By accepting the above, you also perforce accept that from Paul's point of view the earth makes one revolution around the sun for every 1461 revolutions of the little hand on Paul's wrist watch. Do you agree with this? If not, why not. Didn't you read what I wrote before responding? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-26 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d6b14e5-dd31-4fd2-828f-83595ef1a06bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596234 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:05 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 25.11.2022 16:23, skrev patdolan: > > On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:27:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> > >> I said: > >> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > >> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." > >> > >> The following is equally correct: > >> "Big Ben will OBSERVE that the little hand of Paul's wristwatch > >> makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little hand makes > >> 1461 revolutions." > >> > > > > We now advance the argument. By accepting the above, you also perforce accept that from Paul's point of view the earth makes one revolution around the sun for every 1461 revolutions of the little hand on Paul's wrist watch. Do you agree with this? If not, why not. > Didn't you read what I wrote before responding? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Every damned word, twice. If you are leaving it to me to deduce what your answer is then I must conclude that your answer is yes, from Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun. Do you agree with this? If no, why not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-26 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tlu17n$1f7v9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596248 |
Den 26.11.2022 16:59, skrev patdolan: > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:05 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 25.11.2022 16:23, skrev patdolan: >>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:27:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> I said: >>>> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions >>>> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." >>>> >>>> The following is equally correct: >>>> "Big Ben will OBSERVE that the little hand of Paul's wristwatch >>>> makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little hand makes >>>> 1461 revolutions." >>>> >>> >>> We now advance the argument. By accepting the above, you also perforce accept that from Paul's point of view the earth makes one revolution around the sun for every 1461 revolutions of the little hand on Paul's wrist watch. Do you agree with this? If not, why not. >> Didn't you read what I wrote before responding? > Every damned word, twice. If you are leaving it to me to deduce what your answer is then I must conclude that your answer is yes, from Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun. Do you agree with this? If no, why not. Listen: November 26, 2022 I said: "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." Of course this means that Paul will observe that the little hand on his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions while the Earth makes one orbit around the Sun and Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions. If you had read this, why do you then have to ask if I agree to this: "From Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun." ? Is your point that "From Paul's point of view" is different from "Paul will OBSERVE"? "From Paul's point of view" is less precise than OBSERVE, the meaning of which I thoroughly explained, and you claimed to accept. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-26 20:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77dfe441-5edc-473c-9cf5-0a481ed1477an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596275 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:18 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 26.11.2022 16:59, skrev patdolan: > > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:05 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 25.11.2022 16:23, skrev patdolan: > >>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:27:12 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I said: > >>>> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > >>>> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." > >>>> > >>>> The following is equally correct: > >>>> "Big Ben will OBSERVE that the little hand of Paul's wristwatch > >>>> makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little hand makes > >>>> 1461 revolutions." > >>>> > > >>> > >>> We now advance the argument. By accepting the above, you also perforce accept that from Paul's point of view the earth makes one revolution around the sun for every 1461 revolutions of the little hand on Paul's wrist watch. Do you agree with this? If not, why not. > > >> Didn't you read what I wrote before responding? > > Every damned word, twice. If you are leaving it to me to deduce what your answer is then I must conclude that your answer is yes, from Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun. Do you agree with this? If no, why not. > Listen: > November 26, 2022 I said: > "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." > Of course this means that Paul will observe that the little hand > on his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions while the Earth makes one > orbit around the Sun and Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions. > > If you had read this, why do you then have to ask if I agree to this: > "From Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes > 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun." ? > > Is your point that "From Paul's point of view" is different > from "Paul will OBSERVE"? > > "From Paul's point of view" is less precise than OBSERVE, the meaning > of which I thoroughly explained, and you claimed to accept. > > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Good. You explicitly concur that, after accounting for longitudinal Doppler, distant Paul will count 1461 revolutions of the little hand on his wristwatch for every revolution of the earth around the sun. While earthling Pat counts 730.5 revolutions. That is to say that for Paul the earth's orbital velocity is half the value that it is for Pat. But judging by the quote below, which you made farther up the thread, you seem to be saying that this difference in the earth's orbital velocity is simply some sort of artifact of special relativity and has no further consequences for physical reality. "Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect the observed object, but it can affect the observer's observations of the object. No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." Right Pat?" Let me ask you Paul, is the twin's paradox obviously ridiculous? The difference in the flow rate of time for each twin, caused by their relative velocity, is critical in that Einsteinian fairy tale and has physical consequences for each twin. Is the ladder/barn paradox obviously ridiculous? Or is the barn's frame of reference "more real" than the ladder's? What would Einstein say? You have admitted to 1461 revolutions. That is enough. And that is huge. You are going to find out just how huge. But I prefer to toy with my prey just a while longer. Squirm now, Paul. Squirm in the Dolo-claws.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-27 13:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tlvkc2$1lt4f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596292 |
Den 27.11.2022 05:24, skrev patdolan: > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:18 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Listen: >> November 26, 2022 I said: >> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions >> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." >> Of course this means that Paul will observe that the little hand >> on his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions while the Earth makes one >> orbit around the Sun and Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions. >> >> If you had read this, why do you then have to ask if I agree to this: >> "From Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes >> 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun." ? >> >> Is your point that "From Paul's point of view" is different >> from "Paul will OBSERVE"? >> >> "From Paul's point of view" is less precise than OBSERVE, the meaning >> of which I thoroughly explained, and you claimed to accept. >> > Good. You explicitly concur that, after accounting for longitudinal Doppler, distant Paul will count 1461 revolutions of the little hand on his wristwatch for every revolution of the earth around the sun. While earthling Pat counts 730.5 revolutions. That is to say that for Paul the earth's orbital velocity is half the value that it is for Pat. But judging by the quote below, which you made farther up the thread, you seem to be saying that this difference in the earth's orbital velocity is simply some sort of artifact of special relativity and has no further consequences for physical reality. Doppler has nothing to do with the observation, but let us use it as an example. If you hear the Doppler shifted sound of the whistle of a reseeding train, then the frequency you hear is not an artefact, it is real. But that doesn't mean that your presence has affected the whistle in any way. Your state of motion (relative to the train) has a physical consequence for what you hear, but what you hear has no physical consequence for the whistle. In other words: The observations have physical consequences for the observer (what his instruments show is no illusion), but the observer's observations have no physical consequences for the observed object. This should be blatantly obvious for any thinking person, so why is it so hard to grasp? > > "Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > observations of the object. > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. Yes. Let us sum it up (for the last time): The earthling Pat can with his local clock Big Ben measure that the little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions, that is 365.25⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds or a year, while the Earth makes one orbit around the Sun. This is an objective fact. The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Paul can not affect the rate of Big Ben or the orbital velocity of the Earth. Paul's state of motion can affect his observations of Big Ben and the Earth. So Paul will OBSERVE Big Ben to run slow by a factor of two so that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions, that is 365.25⋅2⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds or 2 years. Paul knows that his wristwatch run with normal speed according to the SI definition, that is it advances 1 second per second. This is an objective fact. The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Pat can not affect the rate of Paul's wristwatch. Pat's state of motion can affect his observations of Paul's wristwatch. So Pat will OBSERVE that Paul's wristwatch run slow by a factor of two so that the little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little hand makes 1461 revolutions, that is 365.25⋅2⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds or 2 years. That's why: > > It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > Let me ask you Paul, is the twin's paradox obviously ridiculous? The difference in the flow rate of time for each twin, caused by their relative velocity, is critical in that Einsteinian fairy tale and has physical consequences for each twin. Is the ladder/barn paradox obviously ridiculous? Or is the barn's frame of reference "more real" than the ladder's? What would Einstein say? It is not the relative velocity between the twins that matter. See 2.3 in: https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf Note that twin A isn't mentioned in the calculation of how much B will age between the two events start and stop. That is because what A does, doesn't affect twin B in any way. B ages 9.91 years because his acceleration history is as it is. A is assumed to be inertial, and then he would age 23.67 years Summing up: A is ageing 23.664 years because he is inertial between the events. What B does doesn't affect A in any way. B is ageing 9.91 years because of his acceleration history between the events. What A does doesn't affect B in any way. > > You have admitted to 1461 revolutions. That is enough. And that is huge. You are going to find out just how huge. But I prefer to toy with my prey just a while longer. > > Squirm now, Paul. Squirm in the Dolo-claws. Say, are you really too stupid to understand who has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." Case closed. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-27 13:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rIIgL.1311833$odm4.1092702@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #596304 |
Den 27.11.2022 13:14, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > Den 27.11.2022 05:24, skrev patdolan: >> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:18 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen >> wrote: >>> Listen: >>> November 26, 2022 I said: >>> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions >>> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." >>> Of course this means that Paul will observe that the little hand >>> on his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions while the Earth makes one >>> orbit around the Sun and Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions. >>> >>> If you had read this, why do you then have to ask if I agree to this: >>> "From Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes >>> 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun." ? >>> >>> Is your point that "From Paul's point of view" is different >>> from "Paul will OBSERVE"? >>> >>> "From Paul's point of view" is less precise than OBSERVE, the meaning >>> of which I thoroughly explained, and you claimed to accept. >>> > >> Good. You explicitly concur that, after accounting for longitudinal >> Doppler, distant Paul will count 1461 revolutions of the little hand >> on his wristwatch for every revolution of the earth around the sun. Something strange has happened. The next statement is made by Pat, not by me: Pat begin: > While earthling Pat counts 730.5 revolutions. That is to say that for > Paul the earth's orbital velocity is half the value that it is for Pat. > But judging by the quote below, which you made farther up the thread, > you seem to be saying that this difference in the earth's orbital > velocity is simply some sort of artifact of special relativity and has > no further consequences for physical reality. Pat ends. > > Doppler has nothing to do with the observation, but let us use it > as an example. If you hear the Doppler shifted sound of > the whistle of a reseeding train, then the frequency you hear > is not an artefact, it is real. But that doesn't mean that > your presence has affected the whistle in any way. > > Your state of motion (relative to the train) has a physical > consequence for what you hear, but what you hear has no > physical consequence for the whistle. > > In other words: > The observations have physical consequences for the observer > (what his instruments show is no illusion), but the observer's > observations have no physical consequences for the observed > object. > > This should be blatantly obvious for any thinking person, > so why is it so hard to grasp? > >> >> "Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: >> >> The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect >> the observed object, but it can affect the observer's >> observations of the object. >> >> No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > Yes. > > Let us sum it up (for the last time): > > The earthling Pat can with his local clock Big Ben measure > that the little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions, > that is 365.25⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds or a year, while the Earth > makes one orbit around the Sun. This is an objective fact. > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Paul > can not affect the rate of Big Ben or the orbital velocity > of the Earth. > > Paul's state of motion can affect his observations > of Big Ben and the Earth. So Paul will OBSERVE > Big Ben to run slow by a factor of two so that Big Ben's > little hand makes 730.5 revolutions while the little hand > of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions, that is > 365.25⋅2⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds or 2 years. > > > Paul knows that his wristwatch run with normal speed according > to the SI definition, that is it advances 1 second per second. > This is an objective fact. > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Pat > can not affect the rate of Paul's wristwatch. > > Pat's state of motion can affect his observations of > Paul's wristwatch. So Pat will OBSERVE that Paul's wristwatch > run slow by a factor of two so that the little hand of Paul's > wristwatch makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little > hand makes 1461 revolutions, that is 365.25⋅2⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds > or 2 years. > > That's why: >> >> It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: >> "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to >> the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's >> axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." >> > >> >> Let me ask you Paul, is the twin's paradox obviously ridiculous? The >> difference in the flow rate of time for each twin, caused by their >> relative velocity, is critical in that Einsteinian fairy tale and has >> physical consequences for each twin. Is the ladder/barn paradox >> obviously ridiculous? Or is the barn's frame of reference "more real" >> than the ladder's? What would Einstein say? > > It is not the relative velocity between the twins that matter. > > See 2.3 in: > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > Note that twin A isn't mentioned in the calculation > of how much B will age between the two events start and stop. > That is because what A does, doesn't affect twin B in any way. > B ages 9.91 years because his acceleration history is as it is. > > A is assumed to be inertial, and then he would age 23.67 years > > Summing up: > A is ageing 23.664 years because he is inertial between the events. > What B does doesn't affect A in any way. > > B is ageing 9.91 years because of his acceleration history between > the events. What A does doesn't affect B in any way. > >> >> You have admitted to 1461 revolutions. That is enough. And that is >> huge. You are going to find out just how huge. But I prefer to toy >> with my prey just a while longer. >> >> Squirm now, Paul. Squirm in the Dolo-claws. > > Say, are you really too stupid to understand who > has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > Case closed. > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-27 04:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c19723c1-200d-417b-8934-a5eb78b0793cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596304 |
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 13:15:01 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > In other words: > The observations have physical consequences for the observer > (what his instruments show is no illusion), but the observer's > observations have no physical consequences for the observed > object. Sorry, poor idiot, wrong as usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-27 09:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b9d55890-6572-4e59-a97d-014b366dc5a6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596304 |
On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:15:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 27.11.2022 05:24, skrev patdolan: > > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:18 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Listen: > >> November 26, 2022 I said: > >> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > >> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." > >> Of course this means that Paul will observe that the little hand > >> on his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions while the Earth makes one > >> orbit around the Sun and Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions. > >> > >> If you had read this, why do you then have to ask if I agree to this: > >> "From Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes > >> 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun." ? > >> > >> Is your point that "From Paul's point of view" is different > >> from "Paul will OBSERVE"? > >> > >> "From Paul's point of view" is less precise than OBSERVE, the meaning > >> of which I thoroughly explained, and you claimed to accept. > >> > > Good. You explicitly concur that, after accounting for longitudinal Doppler, distant Paul will count 1461 revolutions of the little hand on his wristwatch for every revolution of the earth around the sun. > While earthling Pat counts 730.5 revolutions. That is to say that for > Paul the earth's orbital velocity is half the value that it is for Pat. > But judging by the quote below, which you made farther up the thread, > you seem to be saying that this difference in the earth's orbital > velocity is simply some sort of artifact of special relativity and has > no further consequences for physical reality. > Doppler has nothing to do with the observation, but let us use it > as an example. If you hear the Doppler shifted sound of > the whistle of a reseeding train, then the frequency you hear > is not an artefact, it is real. But that doesn't mean that > your presence has affected the whistle in any way. > > Your state of motion (relative to the train) has a physical > consequence for what you hear, but what you hear has no > physical consequence for the whistle. > > In other words: > The observations have physical consequences for the observer > (what his instruments show is no illusion), but the observer's > observations have no physical consequences for the observed > object. > > This should be blatantly obvious for any thinking person, > so why is it so hard to grasp? > > > > "Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: > > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > > observations of the object. > > > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > Yes. > > Let us sum it up (for the last time): > > The earthling Pat can with his local clock Big Ben measure > that the little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions, > that is 365.25⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds or a year, while the Earth > makes one orbit around the Sun. This is an objective fact. > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Paul > can not affect the rate of Big Ben or the orbital velocity > of the Earth. > > Paul's state of motion can affect his observations > of Big Ben and the Earth. So Paul will OBSERVE > Big Ben to run slow by a factor of two so that Big Ben's > little hand makes 730.5 revolutions while the little hand > of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions, that is > 365.25⋅2⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds or 2 years. > > > Paul knows that his wristwatch run with normal speed according > to the SI definition, that is it advances 1 second per second. > This is an objective fact. > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Pat > can not affect the rate of Paul's wristwatch. > > Pat's state of motion can affect his observations of > Paul's wristwatch. So Pat will OBSERVE that Paul's wristwatch > run slow by a factor of two so that the little hand of Paul's > wristwatch makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little > hand makes 1461 revolutions, that is 365.25⋅2⋅2⋅12⋅60⋅60 seconds > or 2 years. > > That's why: > > > > It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > > > > > Let me ask you Paul, is the twin's paradox obviously ridiculous? The difference in the flow rate of time for each twin, caused by their relative velocity, is critical in that Einsteinian fairy tale and has physical consequences for each twin. Is the ladder/barn paradox obviously ridiculous? Or is the barn's frame of reference "more real" than the ladder's? What would Einstein say? > It is not the relative velocity between the twins that matter. > > See 2.3 in: > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > Note that twin A isn't mentioned in the calculation > of how much B will age between the two events start and stop. > That is because what A does, doesn't affect twin B in any way. > B ages 9.91 years because his acceleration history is as it is. > > A is assumed to be inertial, and then he would age 23.67 years > > Summing up: > A is ageing 23.664 years because he is inertial between the events. > What B does doesn't affect A in any way. > > B is ageing 9.91 years because of his acceleration history between > the events. What A does doesn't affect B in any way. > > > > You have admitted to 1461 revolutions. That is enough. And that is huge. You are going to find out just how huge. But I prefer to toy with my prey just a while longer. > > > > Squirm now, Paul. Squirm in the Dolo-claws. > Say, are you really too stupid to understand who > has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > Case closed. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Let's reopen the case with a beautiful quote from Jan in the "clocks and gravity" thread: "The meaningful statement is that all laws of physics are the same, for each observer, locally. Now any process that evolves according to the laws of physics can be considered to be 'a clock." The solar system fits Jan's specification of a clock to a T. We know that SR portends *real* physical consequences for those in separate frames of reference; Twins age at different rates; Muons live longer; Longer ladders pass through shorter barns with no damage; Solar systems run slower. It is this last physical consequence that we now turn our attention to. From distant Paul's perspective, traveling at .867c relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation, the earth is now orbiting at only half the velocity necessary to keep it in orbit around the sun at a distance of 93 million. Are the reduced velocities of the earth and the hands of Big Ben just a relativistic illusion? Has spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun become only half as curved? Is there any other explanation? Please explain to this forum and to posterity exactly what is going on here Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-27 12:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6383C594.1837@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596320 |
patdolan wrote: > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:15:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 27.11.2022 05:24, skrev patdolan: > > > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:18 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> Listen: > > >> November 26, 2022 I said: > > >> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > > >> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." > > >> Of course this means that Paul will observe that the little hand > > >> on his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions while the Earth makes one > > >> orbit around the Sun and Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions. > > >> > > >> If you had read this, why do you then have to ask if I agree to this: > > >> "From Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes > > >> 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun." ? > > >> > > >> Is your point that "From Paul's point of view" is different > > >> from "Paul will OBSERVE"? > > >> > > >> "From Paul's point of view" is less precise than OBSERVE, the meaning > > >> of which I thoroughly explained, and you claimed to accept. > > >> > > > Good. You explicitly concur that, after accounting for longitudinal Doppler, distant Paul will count 1461 revolutions of the little hand on his wristwatch for every revolution of the earth around the sun. > > While earthling Pat counts 730.5 revolutions. That is to say that for > > Paul the earth's orbital velocity is half the value that it is for Pat. > > But judging by the quote below, which you made farther up the thread, > > you seem to be saying that this difference in the earth's orbital > > velocity is simply some sort of artifact of special relativity and has > > no further consequences for physical reality. > > Doppler has nothing to do with the observation, but let us use it > > as an example. If you hear the Doppler shifted sound of > > the whistle of a reseeding train, then the frequency you hear > > is not an artefact, it is real. But that doesn't mean that > > your presence has affected the whistle in any way. > > > > Your state of motion (relative to the train) has a physical > > consequence for what you hear, but what you hear has no > > physical consequence for the whistle. > > > > In other words: > > The observations have physical consequences for the observer > > (what his instruments show is no illusion), but the observer's > > observations have no physical consequences for the observed > > object. > > > > This should be blatantly obvious for any thinking person, > > so why is it so hard to grasp? > > > > > > "Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: > > > > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > > > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > > > observations of the object. > > > > > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > Yes. > > > > Let us sum it up (for the last time): > > > > The earthling Pat can with his local clock Big Ben measure > > that the little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions, > > that is 365.25â‹…2â‹…12â‹…60â‹…60 seconds or a year, while the Earth > > makes one orbit around the Sun. This is an objective fact. > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Paul > > can not affect the rate of Big Ben or the orbital velocity > > of the Earth. > > > > Paul's state of motion can affect his observations > > of Big Ben and the Earth. So Paul will OBSERVE > > Big Ben to run slow by a factor of two so that Big Ben's > > little hand makes 730.5 revolutions while the little hand > > of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions, that is > > 365.25â‹…2â‹…2â‹…12â‹…60â‹…60 seconds or 2 years. > > > > > > Paul knows that his wristwatch run with normal speed according > > to the SI definition, that is it advances 1 second per second. > > This is an objective fact. > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Pat > > can not affect the rate of Paul's wristwatch. > > > > Pat's state of motion can affect his observations of > > Paul's wristwatch. So Pat will OBSERVE that Paul's wristwatch > > run slow by a factor of two so that the little hand of Paul's > > wristwatch makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little > > hand makes 1461 revolutions, that is 365.25â‹…2â‹…2â‹…12â‹…60â‹…60 seconds > > or 2 years. > > > > That's why: > > > > > > It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: > > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > > > > > > > > > Let me ask you Paul, is the twin's paradox obviously ridiculous? The difference in the flow rate of time for each twin, caused by their relative velocity, is critical in that Einsteinian fairy tale and has physical consequences for each twin. Is the ladder/barn paradox obviously ridiculous? Or is the barn's frame of reference "more real" than the ladder's? What would Einstein say? > > It is not the relative velocity between the twins that matter. > > > > See 2.3 in: > > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > > > Note that twin A isn't mentioned in the calculation > > of how much B will age between the two events start and stop. > > That is because what A does, doesn't affect twin B in any way. > > B ages 9.91 years because his acceleration history is as it is. > > > > A is assumed to be inertial, and then he would age 23.67 years > > > > Summing up: > > A is ageing 23.664 years because he is inertial between the events. > > What B does doesn't affect A in any way. > > > > B is ageing 9.91 years because of his acceleration history between > > the events. What A does doesn't affect B in any way. > > > > > > You have admitted to 1461 revolutions. That is enough. And that is huge. You are going to find out just how huge. But I prefer to toy with my prey just a while longer. > > > > > > Squirm now, Paul. Squirm in the Dolo-claws. > > Say, are you really too stupid to understand who > > has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > Case closed. > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/ > Let's reopen the case with a beautiful quote from Jan in the "clocks and gravity" thread: > > "The meaningful statement is that all laws of physics are the same, > for each observer, locally. > Now any process that evolves according to the laws of physics > can be considered to be 'a clock." > > The solar system fits Jan's specification of a clock to a T. Not the actual clock...but the FACE of a clock. One needs to look beyond the face of clock and see the 'machinery' behind it. Like dis for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=IkCku4TM8HA > > We know that SR portends *real* physical consequences for those in separate frames of reference; Twins age at different rates; Muons live longer; Longer ladders pass through shorter barns with no damage; Solar systems run slower. It is this last physical consequence that we now turn our attention to. > > From distant Paul's perspective, traveling at .867c relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation, the earth is now orbiting at only half the velocity necessary to keep it in orbit around the sun at a distance of 93 million. Are the reduced velocities of the earth and the hands of Big Ben just a relativistic illusion? Has spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun become only half as curved? Is there any other explanation? > > Please explain to this forum and to posterity exactly what is going on here Paul. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 14:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63853876.232E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596334 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > patdolan wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:15:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Den 27.11.2022 05:24, skrev patdolan: > > > > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:42:18 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > >> Listen: > > > >> November 26, 2022 I said: > > > >> "Paul will OBSERVE that Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions > > > >> while the little hand of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions." > > > >> Of course this means that Paul will observe that the little hand > > > >> on his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions while the Earth makes one > > > >> orbit around the Sun and Big Ben's little hand makes 730.5 revolutions. > > > >> > > > >> If you had read this, why do you then have to ask if I agree to this: > > > >> "From Paul's point of view the little hand on Paul's wristwatch makes > > > >> 1461 revolutions for ever revolution the earth makes around the sun." ? > > > >> > > > >> Is your point that "From Paul's point of view" is different > > > >> from "Paul will OBSERVE"? > > > >> > > > >> "From Paul's point of view" is less precise than OBSERVE, the meaning > > > >> of which I thoroughly explained, and you claimed to accept. > > > >> > > > > Good. You explicitly concur that, after accounting for longitudinal Doppler, distant Paul will count 1461 revolutions of the little hand on his wristwatch for every revolution of the earth around the sun. > > > While earthling Pat counts 730.5 revolutions. That is to say that for > > > Paul the earth's orbital velocity is half the value that it is for Pat. > > > But judging by the quote below, which you made farther up the thread, > > > you seem to be saying that this difference in the earth's orbital > > > velocity is simply some sort of artifact of special relativity and has > > > no further consequences for physical reality. > > > Doppler has nothing to do with the observation, but let us use it > > > as an example. If you hear the Doppler shifted sound of > > > the whistle of a reseeding train, then the frequency you hear > > > is not an artefact, it is real. But that doesn't mean that > > > your presence has affected the whistle in any way. > > > > > > Your state of motion (relative to the train) has a physical > > > consequence for what you hear, but what you hear has no > > > physical consequence for the whistle. > > > > > > In other words: > > > The observations have physical consequences for the observer > > > (what his instruments show is no illusion), but the observer's > > > observations have no physical consequences for the observed > > > object. > > > > > > This should be blatantly obvious for any thinking person, > > > so why is it so hard to grasp? > > > > > > > > "Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: > > > > > > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > > > > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > > > > observations of the object. > > > > > > > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > > Yes. > > > > > > Let us sum it up (for the last time): > > > > > > The earthling Pat can with his local clock Big Ben measure > > > that the little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions, > > > that is 365.25â‹…2â‹…12â‹…60â‹…60 seconds or a year, while the Earth > > > makes one orbit around the Sun. This is an objective fact. > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Paul > > > can not affect the rate of Big Ben or the orbital velocity > > > of the Earth. > > > > > > Paul's state of motion can affect his observations > > > of Big Ben and the Earth. So Paul will OBSERVE > > > Big Ben to run slow by a factor of two so that Big Ben's > > > little hand makes 730.5 revolutions while the little hand > > > of his wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions, that is > > > 365.25â‹…2â‹…2â‹…12â‹…60â‹…60 seconds or 2 years. > > > > > > > > > Paul knows that his wristwatch run with normal speed according > > > to the SI definition, that is it advances 1 second per second. > > > This is an objective fact. > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer like Pat > > > can not affect the rate of Paul's wristwatch. > > > > > > Pat's state of motion can affect his observations of > > > Paul's wristwatch. So Pat will OBSERVE that Paul's wristwatch > > > run slow by a factor of two so that the little hand of Paul's > > > wristwatch makes 730.5 revolutions while Big Ben's own little > > > hand makes 1461 revolutions, that is 365.25â‹…2â‹…2â‹…12â‹…60â‹…60 seconds > > > or 2 years. > > > > > > That's why: > > > > > > > > It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: > > > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me ask you Paul, is the twin's paradox obviously ridiculous? The difference in the flow rate of time for each twin, caused by their relative velocity, is critical in that Einsteinian fairy tale and has physical consequences for each twin. Is the ladder/barn paradox obviously ridiculous? Or is the barn's frame of reference "more real" than the ladder's? What would Einstein say? > > > It is not the relative velocity between the twins that matter. > > > > > > See 2.3 in: > > > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > > > > > Note that twin A isn't mentioned in the calculation > > > of how much B will age between the two events start and stop. > > > That is because what A does, doesn't affect twin B in any way. > > > B ages 9.91 years because his acceleration history is as it is. > > > > > > A is assumed to be inertial, and then he would age 23.67 years > > > > > > Summing up: > > > A is ageing 23.664 years because he is inertial between the events. > > > What B does doesn't affect A in any way. > > > > > > B is ageing 9.91 years because of his acceleration history between > > > the events. What A does doesn't affect B in any way. > > > > > > > > You have admitted to 1461 revolutions. That is enough. And that is huge. You are going to find out just how huge. But I prefer to toy with my prey just a while longer. > > > > > > > > Squirm now, Paul. Squirm in the Dolo-claws. > > > Say, are you really too stupid to understand who > > > has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > Case closed. > > > > > > -- > > > Paul > > > > > > https://paulba.no/ > > Let's reopen the case with a beautiful quote from Jan in the "clocks and gravity" thread: > > > > "The meaningful statement is that all laws of physics are the same, > > for each observer, locally. > > Now any process that evolves according to the laws of physics > > can be considered to be 'a clock." > > > > The solar system fits Jan's specification of a clock to a T. > > Not the actual clock...but the FACE of a clock. > > One needs to look beyond the face of clock and see the 'machinery' > behind it. > > Like dis for example: > https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=IkCku4TM8HA Now, everyone knows that all the planets run clockwise and counterclockwise.. the whole universe runs run clockwise and counterclockwise... but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects in the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. Surely by now you must have taken a clock apart to see what's behind the face of the clock? Or, the machinery behind ...Your face. Like dis for example: you can see the universe ..then, the machinery behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=IkCku4TM8HA It's dat simple. Call it a Gravity machine if you will... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 15:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q9rf5j-v0j51.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #596382 |
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: <snip piles of old crap? > Now, everyone knows that all the planets run clockwise and counterclockwise.. > the whole universe runs run clockwise and counterclockwise... > > but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects in > the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. Maybe because clockwise and counterclockwise are the only choices that exit, idiot. As to whether some thing is going clockwise or counterclockwise, it depends on how you are looking at the thing, idiot. <snip remaining babble>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 16:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <638553D0.655B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596386 |
Jim Pennino wrote: > > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > <snip piles of old crap? > > > Now, everyone knows that all the planets run clockwise and counterclockwise.. > > the whole universe runs run clockwise and counterclockwise... > > > > but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects in > > the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. > > Maybe because clockwise and counterclockwise are the only choices that > exit, idiot. > > As to whether some thing is going clockwise or counterclockwise, it > depends on how you are looking at the thing, idiot. Well that is simply not true... Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole. So, if you're looking at it from either from above or below it's STILL clockwise and counterclockwise. if you were twice as smart you'd be an idiot... wop. badabingbadaboom forgetaboutit! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 16:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mj1g5j-bqo51.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #596391 |
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Jim Pennino wrote: >> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> <snip piles of old crap? >> >> > Now, everyone knows that all the planets run clockwise and counterclockwise.. >> > the whole universe runs run clockwise and counterclockwise... >> > >> > but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects in >> > the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. >> >> Maybe because clockwise and counterclockwise are the only choices that >> exit, idiot. >> >> As to whether some thing is going clockwise or counterclockwise, it >> depends on how you are looking at the thing, idiot. > > Well that is simply not true... > > > Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole. See above and read it slowly, idiot. > > So, if you're looking at it from either from above or below it's STILL clockwise and counterclockwise. See above and read it slowly, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web