Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #625722

Re: The Helical Path Paradox

Show all headers | View raw

On 14-Dec-23 11:55 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/12/2023 à 01:30, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> On 14-Dec-23 11:22 am, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 1:42:36 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14-Dec-23 3:03 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>> Le 13/12/2023 à 09:51, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>>>>>> On 12-Dec-23 5:19 pm, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away from Big Ben. Two distant
>>>>>>> observers A and B are racing past Proxima Centauri on their way to
>>>>>>> Big Ben at .867c relative to the Big Ben--Proxima Centauri frame of
>>>>>>> reference. For these two observers Proxima Centauri and Big Ben are
>>>>>>> only 2.1 light-years apart due to Lorentz contraction. Both 
>>>>>>> observers
>>>>>>> also note that the little hand of Big Ben rotates only 365.25 times
>>>>>>> per year of their proper time instead of 730.5 rotations, due to
>>>>>>> Lorentz time dilation. Now this slowing of Big Ben is not some
>>>>>>> illusion or artifact of speed. SR assures us that Big Ben REALLY IS
>>>>>>> RUNNING SLOWER in their frame of reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just as observer A passes Proxima Centauri he begins to count the
>>>>>>> 365.25 x 2.1 = 767 turns in the helical path of light emanating from
>>>>>>> the tip of Big Ben's little hand, which lie between Big Ben and
>>>>>>> Proxima Centauri at any given moment in that frame of reference. He
>>>>>>> also counts the 2.42 x 365.25 = 884 additional turns that Big Ben
>>>>>>> produces during the rest of his 2.42 year journey to Big Ben, for a
>>>>>>> total of 1651 turns during the entire trip.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an interesting problem.
>>>>> So I will answer it.
>>>>> This will change all the relativistic nonsense that I notice on the
>>>>> English and French forums in general,
>>>>> where absolutely no one understands the theory correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The observer has to consider where Big Ben was in his frame when the
>>>>>> light he's just seeing set out. Big Ben is now 2.1 light years 
>>>>>> away in
>>>>>> his frame, but it is moving, and the light has taken some time to
>>>>>> arrive, so the light he's just seen must have left Big Ben when it 
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> more than 2.1 light years away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we let the distance away that Big Ben was when the light departed
>>>>>> be d, we can see that the time that Big Ben took to get from distance
>>>>>> d to its present position of 2.1 light years must equal the time it
>>>>>> took for the light to get from distance d to the observer. That is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (d - 2.1) / v = d / c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where v = is 0.867c, and c = 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (d - 2.1) / 0.867 = d / 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d - 2.1 = 0.867 * d
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d * (1 - 0.867) = 2.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d = 2.1 / ( 1 - 0.867)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d = 15.79
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in the observer's frame the light has taken 15.79 years to arrive,
>>>>>> and there are many more than 2.1 years worth of rotations between Big
>>>>>> Ben and the observer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything you say seems very interesting, even logical.
>>>>> Only, my very dear and remarkable Sylvia, like everyone else, you do
>>>>> mathematical physics, but abstractly.
>>>>> The universe is not made LIKE THAT.
>>>>>
>>>>> R.H.
>>>> This thread is about the theory of special relativity. Pat has alleged
>>>> that it contains a contradiction, because he got the math wrong.
>>>
>>> Sylvia, I'll brook no tongue-lashing from you about getting the math 
>>> wrong. Let's examine the last two lines in your proof:
>>>
>>> d = 2.1 / ( 1 - 0.867)
>>>
>>> d = 15.79
>>>
>>> Now let's change your value for v=0.867c to the non relativistic 
>>> value of say v=.00001c.  Now your last line becomes d = 2.1 
>>> light-years.  Balderdash!  At non-relativistic velocities d (the 
>>> distance between Big Ben and Proxima Centauri) MUST revert to its 
>>> non-relativistic distance of 4.2 light-years.  You unknowingly 
>>> smuggled Galilean relativity into a special relativity problem.  This 
>>> is where you went wrong and where I went right.
>>
>> The 2.1 is the distance between the stars in the observer's frame, and 
>> derives from the proper distance between the stars, and their velocity 
>> relative to the observer.
>>
>> You specified the parameters of the scenario, I'm just applying them. 
>> If the velocity is not 0.867c, then the distance between stars in the 
>> observer's frame is not 2.1 light years. Nothing turns on that.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> There is a huge misunderstanding in this part of relativistic physics.
> 
> The problem posed here is:
> The distance between Proxima Centauri is 4.2 ly.
> 
> A rocket passing near Proxima at speed Vo=0.867c in the Proxima-Earth 
> direction
> 
> At this very precise moment, the rocket captain looks through his 
> telescope.
> 
> At what distance does he see the earth.
> 
> Yanick Toutain (Newtonian) answers: 4.2 ly.
> 
> Sylvia Else (she is adorable) responds: 1.121 ly and affirms like 
> Einstein that there is a contraction of distances.

You're just making stuff up. I never said that.

Sylvia.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-11 22:19 -0800
  Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-12 11:28 -0800
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-12 17:55 -0800
  Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-13 19:51 +1100
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-13 05:12 -0800
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-14 08:40 +1100
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-13 05:19 -0800
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox Ryker Habibulaev Balanda <enaa@brdaaeea.ye> - 2023-12-13 13:32 +0000
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-12-13 16:03 +0000
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-13 09:50 -0800
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-14 08:42 +1100
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-12-13 22:32 +0000
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-13 16:22 -0800
          Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-14 11:30 +1100
            Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-13 16:52 -0800
              Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-14 11:56 +1100
            Re: The Helical Path Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-12-14 00:55 +0000
              Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-14 12:02 +1100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-12-14 01:27 +0000
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-14 12:58 +1100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2023-12-14 13:56 +0100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-12-14 14:45 +0000
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2023-12-14 18:17 +0100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-14 10:03 -0800
            Re: The Helical Path Paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-13 17:00 -0800
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-14 12:07 -0800
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-14 12:49 -0800
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-15 11:10 +1100
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-14 19:21 -0800
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-14 19:23 -0800
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-14 19:33 -0800
          Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-15 15:07 +1100
            Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-14 20:40 -0800
              Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-15 16:07 +1100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-15 00:26 -0800
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-15 19:45 +1100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-15 14:45 +0100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-15 12:06 -0800
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-16 10:24 +0100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-16 01:47 -0800
            Re: The Helical Path Paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-15 13:37 -0800
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-16 13:20 -0800
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-17 16:13 -0800
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-18 11:25 +1100
          Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-17 16:48 -0800
            Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-18 13:09 +1100
              Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-17 18:31 -0800
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-18 14:14 +1100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-18 06:29 -0800
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-18 20:43 +0100
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-18 06:19 -0800
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-19 09:59 +1100
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-18 15:28 -0800
          Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-19 11:01 +1100
            Re: The Helical Path Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-12-19 10:28 +0000
              Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-19 21:37 +1100
          Re: The Helical Path Paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-19 01:03 -0500
        Re: The Helical Path Paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-18 21:17 -0800
  Re: The Helical Path Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-15 14:45 +0100
    Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-15 11:28 -0800
      Re: The Helical Path Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-16 10:24 +0100

csiph-web