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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #626107

Re: The Helical Path Paradox

Show all headers | View raw

On 19-Dec-23 10:28 am, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 2:59:28 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 19-Dec-23 1:19 am, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:51:44 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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,
>>> You have unknowingly assumed absolute motion right here. So let's
>>> use your assumption of the existence of absolute motion. But this
>>> time we will assume that the observer is moving while Big Ben is
>>> stationary in the observer's frame.
>>> 
>>> We start with your conclusion that the distance between Big Ben 
>>> and the observer is 15.79 light-years in the observer's frame 
>>> when Big Ben emits the first light the observer will see. So we 
>>> also know that at the instant the first light is emitted from
>>> BB, the distance between the observer and Proxima Centauri is [
>>> 15.79 - 2.1 = ] 13.69 light-years in the observer's frame because
>>> the separation between BB and PC is always a constant in any
>>> frame. But the observer is moving towards the stationary Proxima 
>>> Centauri at .867c. Therefore after 2.1 light-years, just as the 
>>> first light emitted by the stationary BB is passing the 
>>> stationary PC, the moving observer will have cut the total 
>>> distance down by only [ 2.1 x .867 = ] 1.82 light-years. So
>>> there can be no physical rendezvous of the first light and the
>>> observer at Proxima Centauri according to your assumption that d
>>> = 15.79.
>> The flaw in your reasoning here is the assumption that, in the 
>> observer's frame, it will take 2.1 years for the light emitted
>> from Big Ben (BB) to reach Proxima Centauri (PC). This assumption
>> is incorrect because in the observer's frame PC is moving at
>> 0.867c away from the light that is heading towards it.
> 
> Wrong!  In my version of the observer's frame, the coordinate system 
> is attached to the earth (and therefore Proxima Centauri).  And it
> is the observer who is moving with respect to that
> Lorentz-contracted frame.  Is this possible?  Sure.  That's the
> principle of relativity. The co-moving coordinate system can be
> attached to either the observer or the thing observed.  If not, why
> not?

Each inertial frame has its own coordinate system. Special relativity
describes the transformation (the Lorentz transformation) between the
coordinate systems of relatively moving inertial frames.

You can analyse a scenario in any inertial frame, but you need to be 
consistent about it, and not mix results between frames.

You also cannot arbitrarily say that the coordinate system of a 
particular inertial frame is the one applicable to an observer in a 
different inertial frame. Nothing in special relativity says you can do 
that, and especially not the principle of relativity.

Your attempt to save your paradox is looking increasingly desperate.

Sylvia.

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

Thread

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 Patrick Dolan <pd8441303@gmail.com> - 2023-12-23 09:56 -0800
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox "pdolan@adsistor.com" <pdolan@adsistor.com> - 2023-12-27 00:02 -0800
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-27 00:21 -0800
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-27 10:37 -0800
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-12-28 09:46 +1100
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-12-28 08:26 +0000
                Re: The Helical Path Paradox patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-28 09:12 -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

csiph-web