Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #612974 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-15 08:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-06-15 23:26 -0700 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 174 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-15 08:23 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 16:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 17:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 19:08 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 22:45 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 23:01 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 01:21 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-06-16 15:18 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 07:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-16 17:15 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-16 20:22 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 17:39 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 09:27 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-17 17:38 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 16:32 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 16:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 16:50 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 17:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 18:47 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 21:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 03:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 06:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 08:02 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:47 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 19:35 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-21 09:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 18:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-22 10:25 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 16:51 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-22 17:51 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 21:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-23 07:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-23 17:45 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 12:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 14:23 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 14:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 18:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-25 03:10 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 20:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 20:53 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 21:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 21:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 22:13 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 22:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 22:53 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 23:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 00:18 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 00:28 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 00:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 00:47 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 00:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 10:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 02:29 -0700
Re: Einsteine Miquel Niftrik <lile@iulmqnqu.ni> - 2023-06-26 13:47 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 07:20 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 14:02 -0400
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 11:12 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 15:33 -0400
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:36 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 12:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 18:37 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 18:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 19:22 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 19:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 19:48 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 21:31 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 21:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 22:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 17:34 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-27 16:19 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 18:42 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 09:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 19:05 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 11:07 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 12:44 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 13:03 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 22:07 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 13:34 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 22:44 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 23:39 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-27 21:51 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 23:54 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 17:49 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 21:00 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 01:10 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 01:26 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 06:38 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 07:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 08:58 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 09:50 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 10:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:10 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 11:16 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 20:57 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 17:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 22:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 12:01 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-28 14:34 -0400
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Braxton Ramakers <ssor@ekrattrt.mr> - 2023-06-28 21:31 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Woodrow Aalst <soas@ooaowlat.ow> - 2023-06-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 22:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 09:44 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-22 20:48 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-22 19:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-23 05:19 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 11:13 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 02:22 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-25 07:25 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 12:13 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 13:01 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 18:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 19:02 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 22:15 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:44 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 11:11 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 12:12 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 19:07 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 11:13 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 12:20 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-19 14:40 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 16:04 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-19 19:34 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 23:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-20 23:31 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 19:58 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-15 23:26 -0700
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39161998-6593-428b-b6b1-821089bd8236n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613130 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:44:30 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 9:24:10 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > [Thank you again for your patient answers to my dim-witted questions.] > > No problem. > > > You stated that T4-T3 > t4-t3. > > Yes, and those terms were clearly defined. Unfortunately, you ignored the statement of what each of those symbols represent, so you have no idea with that inequality actually means, right? > > > Consider myself and my wristwatch and one single clock moving with > > respect to me. > > Okay, so having failed to grasp the essential description of relativistic time dilation, which crucially depends on the concept of inertial synchronization of multiple clocks mutually at rest in spatially separate locations, you now in infantile fashion revert back to your baby-like context to avoid understanding. Sheesh. > > > You also said that such a clock when viewed by me with > > the unaided eye will tick at exactly the same rate as my wristwatch... > > LOL. Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drunk already? Again, what was patiently explained to you is that you were grossly mistaken when you claimed that, after compensating the received frequency for the relativistic Doppler effect you would find a frequency of half the rest frequency. It was explained to you that compensating a received signal for the full relativistic Doppler effect tautologically yields the rest frequency. Duh. I rephrase and reiterate: At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, how many revolutions of the big hand on the moving clock do I observer with the unaided eye? > > Then PD+50IQ joined the discussion, and it was explained to him that if the received signal is compensated just for the first-order Doppler effect, which purely accounts for the rate of change of distance, the result is a frequency that is half the rest frequency. He quickly understood this (what a breath of fresh air!), because he is not a completely brain-dead nitwit, nor is he a demented hardcore-crackpot troll. If only we could hear more from him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d90c31c4-3fcc-4528-b621-2e2a463e21fen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613136 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 11:11:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, > how many revolutions of the big hand on the [approaching] clock do I observe > with the unaided eye? As explained to you multiple times before, 3.732. What part of 3.732 don't you understand? And why have you abandoned your effort to learn what relativistic time dilation means? Lost interest? Never really were interested? Only when you understand that each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row, and WHY that is true, as explained above, will you understand relativistic time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49b61dd8-b030-418a-a159-7b77bfcd200dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613141 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:12:39 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 11:11:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, > > how many revolutions of the big hand on the [approaching] clock do I observe > > with the unaided eye? > > As explained to you multiple times before, 3.732. What part of 3.732 don't you understand? > > And why have you abandoned your effort to learn what relativistic time dilation means? Lost interest? Never really were interested? Only when you understand that each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row, and WHY that is true, as explained above, will you understand relativistic time dilation. Legion, Before I render my verdict in Einstein v. Big Ben, are there any final arguments you wish to make as to the illegitimacy of the paradox; either logical, scientific or relativistic?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddc8278e-6fc6-4ea9-9d6d-14ae8ddfbccbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613157 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 11:11:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, > how many revolutions of the big hand on the [approaching] clock do I observe > with the unaided eye? As explained multiple times before, 3.732. What part of 3.732 don't you understand? > Do you have any additional comments? Yes, I would note that you quickly abandoned your effort to learn what relativistic time dilation even means, which suggests that you really have no interest in understanding it. Likewise, the clear and careful answers to each of your questions have been provided (such as the one above), and you've summarily ignored each and every one of the them, fleeing from understanding just as fast as your little legs can carry you. Lastly, you seem to be laboring under the belief that your misunderstandings are somehow new or novel, when in fact you are just reciting the standard newbie misconceptions and fallacies. It would help your expositions greatly if you would begin each of them with your claim that the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 implies -1 = 1. This would help to speed up the reader's appraisal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <812c5830-c5ac-4a33-aba4-d15eeca4c047n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613207 |
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 2:34:55 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 11:11:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, > > how many revolutions of the big hand on the [approaching] clock do I observe > > with the unaided eye? > As explained multiple times before, 3.732. What part of 3.732 don't you understand? > > > Do you have any additional comments? > > Yes, I would note that you quickly abandoned your effort to learn what relativistic time dilation even means, which suggests that you really have no interest in understanding it. Likewise, the clear and careful answers to each of your questions have been provided (such as the one above), and you've summarily ignored each and every one of the them, fleeing from understanding just as fast as your little legs can carry you. > > Lastly, you seem to be laboring under the belief that your misunderstandings are somehow new or novel, when in fact you are just reciting the standard newbie misconceptions and fallacies. It would help your expositions greatly if you would begin each of them with your claim that the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 implies -1 = 1. This would help to speed up the reader's appraisal. Legion, You have typed nothing that materially challenges the logical soundness of the Big Ben Paradox argument. All you have done so far is to type long winded, overly complicated descriptions of time dilation that are composed in such a style so as to create the impression of some sort of refutation, but refute nothing. Don't believe me? Then complete the following exercise. Below, I have divided the Big Ben Paradox into verses, much as the Bible is divided into verses. Please re-read the verse version of BBP below. Then indicate the first verse you come to which you don't accept. Give no reason yet. I will carefully examine you at each such verse you identify. Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾 = 2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation.(1) As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him,(2) the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London.(3) After taking relativistic doppler into account,(4) the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution (5) for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand,(6) in accordance with special relativity.(7) He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions (8) for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun.(9) From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference (10) the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity (11) necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun.(12) Will the earth spiral into the sun? (13) If not, why not?(14) Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in the above paradox.(15) Invariant spacetime curvature (16) is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.(17)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a716dd73-1a5a-47ef-bc32-f7cbc798acf8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613250 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, > how many revolutions of the big hand on the [approaching] clock do I observe > with the unaided eye? As explained multiple times before, 3.732. Which part of 3.732 don't you understand? > You have typed nothing that materially challenges the logical soundness of the > Big Ben Paradox argument. That's untrue, but of course you are unaware of this, because by your own admission you did not read the explanations. > ...overly complicated descriptions of time dilation... They are not overly complicated, they are as simple as possible... but no simpler. > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾 = 2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation.(1) Simple stipulation. >As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him,(2) Blatant misunderstanding. In terms of S', the solar system is not "spinning", the planets are hurtling at near light speed in helical paths. > the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London.(3) Stupidly irrelevant. Only a nitwit who imagined the proportionality between processes on earth and the orbitalperiod in terms of the sun's rest coordinates are at issue who introduce such a silly ans superfluous element. > After taking relativistic doppler into account,(4) Intentionally ambiguous wording to disguise stupidity. What does "take into account" mean? If it means "apply the relativistic Doppler factor to the seen frequence", then the result is the rest frequency of the solar system, as explained to you many times before. Remember? > the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution (5) Idiotic parsing of incomplete phrases. Sheesh. And ambiguous as to "measures", on top of the ambiguity of "taking into account". A total brain-dead mess. > for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand,(6) Nope, as explained to you many times before. This is Relativity 101, and you are flunking. > ...in accordance with special relativity.(7) Nope, as explained to you before. See above. > He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions (8) More idiotic parsing of incomplete phrases. > for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun.(9) This is a continuation of the idiocy explained above, based on the nitwit imagining the proportionality is in question. Sheesh. > From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference (10) More idiotic parsing of incomplete phrases. > the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity (11) Nope, as explained in detail previously (multiple times, in posts that you admit you chose not to read), the earth's orbital velocity is precisely consistent with it's orbit under the laws of physics in terms of these (and every other) system of coordinates. Note that the equations of physics in generally covariant form includes all the adjustments to make this true. Duh. > necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun.(12) See above for the explanation of the sillful idiocy of that phrase. > Will the earth spiral into the sun? (13) Of course not. Only a stridently dim-witted dolt could imagine that it does. > If not, why not?(14) Again, a one-to-one re-labeling of events does not cause objects to intersect given that they didn't intersect in terms of some other labeling. This is self-evident. Also, the equations of general relativity are generally covariant, as explained above, and if the Ricci tensor vanishes in terms of one system of coordinates it vanishes in terms of all, and geodesics map to geodesics. This all explicitly debunks the standard newbie fallacy that you are peddling. > Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in the above paradox.(15) The above doesn't actually coherently assume or be predicated on anything in any rational way. It's just an infantile bit of verbiage that has lodged in the warm bowl of mush between your ears. But to the extent that we could extrapolate your mush, you actually are assuming Newtonian gravity in the sense that you imagine instantaneous effects, rather than taking account of the light-speed delay to catch up with the speeding helical planets, etc. More fundamentally you are imagining riding along with "spinning" solar system, inconsistent with your own premises. Whaty you are saying is just a bowl of sheer idiocy and ignorance, which is forgiveable for beginning students who often raise this, but hardly for somewone who has been stuck on it for years, willfully disregarding all instruction. > Invariant spacetime curvature (16) As explained before, you don't even have a clue what intrinsic curvature is, and you willfully ignore the fact that the components of the curvature tensor are not invariant, they are covariant, precisely to match whatever system of coordinates we are using. Duh. > is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.(17) Again, since you don't even know what the word "curvature" means in this context, you are not really coherently assuming this or anything else. You are just gibbering like a spoiled infant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9267b61-eb62-4513-9787-d44489ac97e0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613252 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 12:04:10 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, > > how many revolutions of the big hand on the [approaching] clock do I observe > > with the unaided eye? > As explained multiple times before, 3.732. Which part of 3.732 don't you understand? > > You have typed nothing that materially challenges the logical soundness of the > > Big Ben Paradox argument. > That's untrue, but of course you are unaware of this, because by your own admission you did not read the explanations. > > > ...overly complicated descriptions of time dilation... > > They are not overly complicated, they are as simple as possible... but no simpler. > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾 = 2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation.(1) > Simple stipulation. > >As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him,(2) > Blatant misunderstanding. In terms of S', the solar system is not "spinning", the planets are hurtling at near light speed in helical paths. > > the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London.(3) > Stupidly irrelevant. Only a nitwit who imagined the proportionality between processes on earth and the orbitalperiod in terms of the sun's rest coordinates are at issue who introduce such a silly ans superfluous element. > > After taking relativistic doppler into account,(4) > Intentionally ambiguous wording to disguise stupidity. What does "take into account" mean? If it means "apply the relativistic Doppler factor to the seen frequence", then the result is the rest frequency of the solar system, as explained to you many times before. Remember? > > the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution (5) > Idiotic parsing of incomplete phrases. Sheesh. And ambiguous as to "measures", on top of the ambiguity of "taking into account". A total brain-dead mess. > > for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand,(6) > Nope, as explained to you many times before. This is Relativity 101, and you are flunking. > > > ...in accordance with special relativity.(7) > > Nope, as explained to you before. See above. > > He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions (8) > More idiotic parsing of incomplete phrases. > > for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun.(9) > This is a continuation of the idiocy explained above, based on the nitwit imagining the proportionality is in question. Sheesh. > > From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference (10) > More idiotic parsing of incomplete phrases. > > the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity (11) > Nope, as explained in detail previously (multiple times, in posts that you admit you chose not to read), the earth's orbital velocity is precisely consistent with it's orbit under the laws of physics in terms of these (and every other) system of coordinates. Note that the equations of physics in generally covariant form includes all the adjustments to make this true. Duh. > > necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun.(12) > See above for the explanation of the sillful idiocy of that phrase. > > Will the earth spiral into the sun? (13) > Of course not. Only a stridently dim-witted dolt could imagine that it does. > > > If not, why not?(14) > > Again, a one-to-one re-labeling of events does not cause objects to intersect given that they didn't intersect in terms of some other labeling. This is self-evident. Also, the equations of general relativity are generally covariant, as explained above, and if the Ricci tensor vanishes in terms of one system of coordinates it vanishes in terms of all, and geodesics map to geodesics. This all explicitly debunks the standard newbie fallacy that you are peddling. > > Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in the above paradox.(15) > The above doesn't actually coherently assume or be predicated on anything in any rational way. It's just an infantile bit of verbiage that has lodged in the warm bowl of mush between your ears. But to the extent that we could extrapolate your mush, you actually are assuming Newtonian gravity in the sense that you imagine instantaneous effects, rather than taking account of the light-speed delay to catch up with the speeding helical planets, etc. > > More fundamentally you are imagining riding along with "spinning" solar system, inconsistent with your own premises. Whaty you are saying is just a bowl of sheer idiocy and ignorance, which is forgiveable for beginning students who often raise this, but hardly for somewone who has been stuck on it for years, willfully disregarding all instruction. > > > Invariant spacetime curvature (16) > > As explained before, you don't even have a clue what intrinsic curvature is, and you willfully ignore the fact that the components of the curvature tensor are not invariant, they are covariant, precisely to match whatever system of coordinates we are using. Duh. > > is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.(17) > Again, since you don't even know what the word "curvature" means in this context, you are not really coherently assuming this or anything else. You are just gibbering like a spoiled infant. You just couldn't contain yourself, could you Legion. If you are incapable of controlling your impulse to write, then I have another challenge for you: re-write the Big Ben Paradox in your own words, in the manner you believe is correct in all aspects. I dare you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i7udnXblqLG1Mg35nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #613250 |
On 6/19/23 1:13 PM, patdolan wrote: > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾 = 2 ) relative > to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's > axis of rotation. And approaching the solar system (i.e. not receding from it). > (1) As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, Hmmmm. The solar system does not "spin", but its planets do orbit the sun, each at its own rate. > (2) the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big > Ben in London. OK for a gedanken. In the real world this would not be possible. > (3) After taking relativistic doppler into account, I presume you mean that they CORRECT their observation of Big Ban's hands by the relativistic Doppler formula. > (4) the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one > revolution (5) for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's > little hand, NOPE. Given your (3), they see the corrected Big Ben's little hand make one revolution for each revolution of their wristwatch's little hand. Because they CORRECTED for the Doppler shift. Had they not corrected for the relativistic Doppler shift, they would see Big Ben's little hand make 3.75 revolutions for each revolution of their wristwatch's little hand. You seem to fantasize that this scenario demonstrates "time dilation". IT DOES NOT. "Time dilation" does not enter into the correction, only the relativistic Doppler shift does so, which you explicitly corrected away. > [... more repetitious nonsense] Will the earth spiral into the sun? > (13) If not, why not?(14) It won't, because observations by a distant observer do not affect the solar system at all. This has been explained many times in this thread, but apparently you are unable to read. Don't expect me to continue until you learn something. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 16:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d95aad6-07d5-4e98-9542-c3e720206976n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613257 |
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/19/23 1:13 PM, patdolan wrote: > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾 = 2 ) relative > > to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's > > axis of rotation. > And approaching the solar system (i.e. not receding from it). > > (1) As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, > Hmmmm. The solar system does not "spin", but its planets do orbit the > sun, each at its own rate. > > (2) the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big > > Ben in London. > OK for a gedanken. In the real world this would not be possible. > > (3) After taking relativistic doppler into account, > I presume you mean that they CORRECT their observation of Big Ban's > hands by the relativistic Doppler formula. > > (4) the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one > > revolution (5) for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's > > little hand, > NOPE. Given your (3), they see the corrected Big Ben's little hand make > one revolution for each revolution of their wristwatch's little hand. > Because they CORRECTED for the Doppler shift. What is wrong with this, Tom Roberts: B = Big Ben little hand radians w = wristwatch little hand radians in the wristwatch inertial frame B = w x sqrt[ 1 - .867^2 ] > > Had they not corrected for the relativistic Doppler shift, they would > see Big Ben's little hand make 3.75 revolutions for each revolution of > their wristwatch's little hand. > > You seem to fantasize that this scenario demonstrates "time dilation". > IT DOES NOT. "Time dilation" does not enter into the correction, only > the relativistic Doppler shift does so, which you explicitly corrected away. > > > [... more repetitious nonsense] Will the earth spiral into the sun? > > (13) If not, why not?(14) > It won't, because observations by a distant observer do not affect the > solar system at all. > > This has been explained many times in this thread, but apparently you > are unable to read. Don't expect me to continue until you learn something. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 19:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lLWdnc9eMOmYaQ35nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #613272 |
On 6/19/23 6:04 PM, patdolan wrote: > What is wrong with this, Tom Roberts: > > B = Big Ben little hand radians > > w = wristwatch little hand radians > > in the wristwatch inertial frame > > B = w x sqrt[ 1 - .867^2 ] It does not correspond at all to the scenario you described. Grow up. Stop trying to guess and make stuff up -- GO STUDY. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-19 23:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8e7c749-453f-4286-90aa-a446c3213895n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613277 |
On Tuesday, 20 June 2023 at 02:34:23 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/19/23 6:04 PM, patdolan wrote: > > What is wrong with this, Tom Roberts: > > > > B = Big Ben little hand radians > > > > w = wristwatch little hand radians > > > > in the wristwatch inertial frame > > > > B = w x sqrt[ 1 - .867^2 ] > It does not correspond at all to the scenario you described. Grow up. > Stop trying to guess and make stuff up -- GO STUDY. And learn that we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-20 23:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6492993D.36B3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #613272 |
How about a little ben clock? if you put on a watch on the wrist of a light particle traveling at the speed of light what time would it be? -- 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 | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-18 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cab02913-9582-45a8-acb8-65b3c562402an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613157 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:07:40 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 12:12:39 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 11:11:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > At the completion of one revolution of the big hand on my wristwatch, > > > how many revolutions of the big hand on the [approaching] clock do I observe > > > with the unaided eye? > > > > As explained to you multiple times before, 3.732. What part of 3.732 don't you understand? > > > > And why have you abandoned your effort to learn what relativistic time dilation means? Lost interest? Never really were interested? Only when you understand that each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row, and WHY that is true, as explained above, will you understand relativistic time dilation. > Legion, > > Before I render my verdict in Einstein v. Big Ben, are there any final arguments you wish to make as to the illegitimacy of the paradox; either logical, scientific or relativistic? Slow time is not relative by force and motion in space. How do you prove time is not absolute? What do you use? It is not proof. Fast in space is slow in time. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 23:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <648C0080.5FC1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #612995 |
patdolan wrote: > > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 5:57:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:17:27 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:48:32 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system > > > > along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar > > > > system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope > > > > at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer > > > > measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his > > > > own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity. > > > > > > Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock. This was explained to you before. > > This is interesting comment of your, Legion. Please explain to this forum the concept and consequences of relativistic time dilation. > > > > More to the point, Legion my boy, is Einsteinian time dilation detectable? Einstein himself doesn't believe in 'time dilation'. 'time dilation' is just an idea....just a thought. All in the mind. -- 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] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web