Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614997 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-11 09:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-13 02:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 09:14 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-11 13:19 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 12:19 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 14:31 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 12:55 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 16:03 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:41 +0200
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 00:53 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 02:28 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 02:38 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 12:12 +0200
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-12 17:00 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 00:13 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-12 22:11 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 08:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:44 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 17:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 17:55 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 18:00 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 18:05 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 18:17 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 18:21 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 21:11 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:01 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:11 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 23:17 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 00:03 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 09:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 11:46 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 12:20 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 14:39 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 15:41 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 16:53 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 17:35 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 17:49 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 17:53 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 18:30 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 18:33 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 22:32 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 19:28 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 19:38 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 19:58 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 02:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 04:45 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 05:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 14:22 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 11:26 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 18:21 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 16:28 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-15 19:48 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-15 16:54 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 08:34 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 08:42 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 16:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 16:49 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 22:17 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 00:15 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-17 01:44 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 22:57 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-17 02:50 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Mitchell Demas <letl@alliecim.he> - 2023-07-17 09:28 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 00:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Newton Patselas <nale@lsawttnp.no> - 2023-07-17 09:54 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 10:05 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:30 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:32 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 07:43 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:39 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 10:56 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 19:15 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 19:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 20:02 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 23:35 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 23:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-15 06:21 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 16:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-13 13:18 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 20:55 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-13 14:03 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 21:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-13 14:34 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 21:36 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 00:48 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 00:47 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Teofilo Totolos <tltt@tooioltt.lo> - 2023-07-12 13:58 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 14:29 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 19:04 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 19:09 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 21:23 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 22:20 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 22:58 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 23:10 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-12 20:37 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 04:32 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 04:39 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 11:37 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 06:01 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 02:42 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 14:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kh9bbuF8bo4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615128 |
On 13-July-23 1:55 pm, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year >>>>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in >>>>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big >>>>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with >>>>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? >>>>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated >>>>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever performed the independent calculations. >>>>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course they have. >>>>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about it. If >>>>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition >>>>>>>> to very basic physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. >>>>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work >>>>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you would >>>>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're capable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. >>>> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time dilation >>>> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that >>>> many people, including you, end up misapplying. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? >> The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not >> part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That >> popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no great >> surprise, and just means that this particular popular science >> representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with SR. >> >> As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires >> transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, >> between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction >> to the frame just after it reverses. >> >> Sylvia. > > Sylvia, you continually refer to a gnostic argument that will prove the twins true. Yet you quail at producing it. No, I was not seeking to prove the twin paradox true. I was showing you that your approach to proving it false was misconceived. > > It has been characteristic of the history of relativity that arguments against the twins paradox are simple, terse, cogent and powerful. No such argument exists in favor of the twins paradox. It has been this way for over 100 years. Witness the foolish Prokary as he carefully picks and chooses the most plausible and least laughable explanation. As with Darwinism, a younger and more skeptical generation is rejecting the specious arguments of relativity. Damned old Legion is almost unreadable with all his ad hoc inventions: "skew of simultaneity", "temporal foliations", etc. I am very readable and very unanswerable, as your own reticence (see above) testifies to. To whom will the young physicist of the future eventually rally to? > So, having had your previous objection demolished, you shift your ground, and in the process become even less intelligible. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edd32cdc-bb42-4481-9e99-bf70b7987644n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615130 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-July-23 1:55 pm, patdolan wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: > >>>>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year > >>>>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in > >>>>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big > >>>>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with > >>>>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > >>>>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated > >>>>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever performed the independent calculations. > >>>>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course they have. > >>>>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about it. If > >>>>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition > >>>>>>>> to very basic physics. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. > >>>>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work > >>>>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you would > >>>>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're capable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. > >>>> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time dilation > >>>> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that > >>>> many people, including you, end up misapplying. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? > >> The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not > >> part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That > >> popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no great > >> surprise, and just means that this particular popular science > >> representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with SR. > >> > >> As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires > >> transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, > >> between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction > >> to the frame just after it reverses. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Sylvia, you continually refer to a gnostic argument that will prove the twins true. Yet you quail at producing it. > No, I was not seeking to prove the twin paradox true. I was showing you > that your approach to proving it false was misconceived. > > > > It has been characteristic of the history of relativity that arguments against the twins paradox are simple, terse, cogent and powerful. No such argument exists in favor of the twins paradox. It has been this way for over 100 years. Witness the foolish Prokary as he carefully picks and chooses the most plausible and least laughable explanation. As with Darwinism, a younger and more skeptical generation is rejecting the specious arguments of relativity. Damned old Legion is almost unreadable with all his ad hoc inventions: "skew of simultaneity", "temporal foliations", etc. I am very readable and very unanswerable, as your own reticence (see above) testifies to. To whom will the young physicist of the future eventually rally to? > > > So, having had your previous objection demolished, you shift your > ground, and in the process become even less intelligible. > > Sylvia. Nothing has been proved by you, Sylvia. You have merely alluded to a proof but never typed it out line by line. I claim that no such proof exists. Prove me wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 14:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kh9d6oF8me7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615131 |
On 13-July-23 2:08 pm, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13-July-23 1:55 pm, patdolan wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year >>>>>>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in >>>>>>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big >>>>>>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with >>>>>>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? >>>>>>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated >>>>>>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever performed the independent calculations. >>>>>>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course they have. >>>>>>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about it. If >>>>>>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition >>>>>>>>>> to very basic physics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. >>>>>>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work >>>>>>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you would >>>>>>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're capable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. >>>>>> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time dilation >>>>>> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that >>>>>> many people, including you, end up misapplying. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? >>>> The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not >>>> part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That >>>> popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no great >>>> surprise, and just means that this particular popular science >>>> representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with SR. >>>> >>>> As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires >>>> transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, >>>> between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction >>>> to the frame just after it reverses. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Sylvia, you continually refer to a gnostic argument that will prove the twins true. Yet you quail at producing it. >> No, I was not seeking to prove the twin paradox true. I was showing you >> that your approach to proving it false was misconceived. >>> >>> It has been characteristic of the history of relativity that arguments against the twins paradox are simple, terse, cogent and powerful. No such argument exists in favor of the twins paradox. It has been this way for over 100 years. Witness the foolish Prokary as he carefully picks and chooses the most plausible and least laughable explanation. As with Darwinism, a younger and more skeptical generation is rejecting the specious arguments of relativity. Damned old Legion is almost unreadable with all his ad hoc inventions: "skew of simultaneity", "temporal foliations", etc. I am very readable and very unanswerable, as your own reticence (see above) testifies to. To whom will the young physicist of the future eventually rally to? >>> >> So, having had your previous objection demolished, you shift your >> ground, and in the process become even less intelligible. >> >> Sylvia. > Nothing has been proved by you, Sylvia. You have merely alluded to a proof but never typed it out line by line. I claim that no such proof exists. Prove me wrong. Do you have difficulty understanding "I was not seeking to prove..." ? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aaf23917-daff-43a0-8d47-e62a35b52975n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615134 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:34:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-July-23 2:08 pm, patdolan wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13-July-23 1:55 pm, patdolan wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year > >>>>>>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in > >>>>>>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big > >>>>>>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with > >>>>>>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > >>>>>>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated > >>>>>>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever performed the independent calculations. > >>>>>>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course they have. > >>>>>>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about it. If > >>>>>>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition > >>>>>>>>>> to very basic physics. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. > >>>>>>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work > >>>>>>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you would > >>>>>>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're capable. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. > >>>>>> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time dilation > >>>>>> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that > >>>>>> many people, including you, end up misapplying. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? > >>>> The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not > >>>> part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That > >>>> popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no great > >>>> surprise, and just means that this particular popular science > >>>> representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with SR. > >>>> > >>>> As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires > >>>> transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, > >>>> between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction > >>>> to the frame just after it reverses. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Sylvia, you continually refer to a gnostic argument that will prove the twins true. Yet you quail at producing it. > >> No, I was not seeking to prove the twin paradox true. I was showing you > >> that your approach to proving it false was misconceived. > >>> > >>> It has been characteristic of the history of relativity that arguments against the twins paradox are simple, terse, cogent and powerful. No such argument exists in favor of the twins paradox. It has been this way for over 100 years. Witness the foolish Prokary as he carefully picks and chooses the most plausible and least laughable explanation. As with Darwinism, a younger and more skeptical generation is rejecting the specious arguments of relativity. Damned old Legion is almost unreadable with all his ad hoc inventions: "skew of simultaneity", "temporal foliations", etc. I am very readable and very unanswerable, as your own reticence (see above) testifies to. To whom will the young physicist of the future eventually rally to? > >>> > >> So, having had your previous objection demolished, you shift your > >> ground, and in the process become even less intelligible. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > Nothing has been proved by you, Sylvia. You have merely alluded to a proof but never typed it out line by line. I claim that no such proof exists. Prove me wrong. > Do you have difficulty understanding "I was not seeking to prove..." ? > > Sylvia. Yes, I know. A person with no proof does not seek to prove.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 00:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh9hhoF8ugpU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615135 |
On 7/12/2023 11:36 PM, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:34:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13-July-23 2:08 pm, patdolan wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 13-July-23 1:55 pm, patdolan wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year >>>>>>>>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in >>>>>>>>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? >>>>>>>>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated >>>>>>>>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever performed the independent calculations. >>>>>>>>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course they have. >>>>>>>>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about it. If >>>>>>>>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition >>>>>>>>>>>> to very basic physics. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. >>>>>>>>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work >>>>>>>>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you would >>>>>>>>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're capable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. >>>>>>>> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time dilation >>>>>>>> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that >>>>>>>> many people, including you, end up misapplying. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? >>>>>> The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not >>>>>> part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That >>>>>> popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no great >>>>>> surprise, and just means that this particular popular science >>>>>> representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with SR. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires >>>>>> transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, >>>>>> between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction >>>>>> to the frame just after it reverses. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia, you continually refer to a gnostic argument that will prove the twins true. Yet you quail at producing it. >>>> No, I was not seeking to prove the twin paradox true. I was showing you >>>> that your approach to proving it false was misconceived. >>>>> >>>>> It has been characteristic of the history of relativity that arguments against the twins paradox are simple, terse, cogent and powerful. No such argument exists in favor of the twins paradox. It has been this way for over 100 years. Witness the foolish Prokary as he carefully picks and chooses the most plausible and least laughable explanation. As with Darwinism, a younger and more skeptical generation is rejecting the specious arguments of relativity. Damned old Legion is almost unreadable with all his ad hoc inventions: "skew of simultaneity", "temporal foliations", etc. I am very readable and very unanswerable, as your own reticence (see above) testifies to. To whom will the young physicist of the future eventually rally to? >>>>> >>>> So, having had your previous objection demolished, you shift your >>>> ground, and in the process become even less intelligible. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> Nothing has been proved by you, Sylvia. You have merely alluded to a proof but never typed it out line by line. I claim that no such proof exists. Prove me wrong. >> Do you have difficulty understanding "I was not seeking to prove..." ? >> >> Sylvia. > Yes, I know. A person with no proof does not seek to prove. What I said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 00:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh9hg9F8ugpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615134 |
On 7/12/2023 11:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-July-23 2:08 pm, patdolan wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 13-July-23 1:55 pm, patdolan wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a >>>>>>>>>>>> twenty year >>>>>>>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in >>>>>>>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera >>>>>>>>>>>> trained on Big >>>>>>>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer >>>>>>>>>>>> reconcile with >>>>>>>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the >>>>>>>>>>>> trip? >>>>>>>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment >>>>>>>>>>> formulated >>>>>>>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE >>>>>>>>>>> IT WILL! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever >>>>>>>>>> performed the independent calculations. >>>>>>>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course >>>>>>>>> they have. >>>>>>>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about >>>>>>>>> it. If >>>>>>>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in >>>>>>>>>>> addition >>>>>>>>>>> to very basic physics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip >>>>>>>>>> according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time >>>>>>>>>> shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do >>>>>>>>>> it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. >>>>>>>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work >>>>>>>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're >>>>>>>>> capable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to >>>>>>>> compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling >>>>>>>> twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in >>>>>>>> conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when >>>>>>>> applied to a the twins paradox. >>>>>>> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time >>>>>>> dilation >>>>>>> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that >>>>>>> many people, including you, end up misapplying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there >>>>>> is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in >>>>>> this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. >>>>>> And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand >>>>>> that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my >>>>>> life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? >>>>> The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not >>>>> part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That >>>>> popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no >>>>> great >>>>> surprise, and just means that this particular popular science >>>>> representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with >>>>> SR. >>>>> >>>>> As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires >>>>> transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, >>>>> between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction >>>>> to the frame just after it reverses. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Sylvia, you continually refer to a gnostic argument that will prove >>>> the twins true. Yet you quail at producing it. >>> No, I was not seeking to prove the twin paradox true. I was showing you >>> that your approach to proving it false was misconceived. >>>> >>>> It has been characteristic of the history of relativity that >>>> arguments against the twins paradox are simple, terse, cogent and >>>> powerful. No such argument exists in favor of the twins paradox. It >>>> has been this way for over 100 years. Witness the foolish Prokary as >>>> he carefully picks and chooses the most plausible and least >>>> laughable explanation. As with Darwinism, a younger and more >>>> skeptical generation is rejecting the specious arguments of >>>> relativity. Damned old Legion is almost unreadable with all his ad >>>> hoc inventions: "skew of simultaneity", "temporal foliations", etc. >>>> I am very readable and very unanswerable, as your own reticence (see >>>> above) testifies to. To whom will the young physicist of the future >>>> eventually rally to? >>>> >>> So, having had your previous objection demolished, you shift your >>> ground, and in the process become even less intelligible. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> Nothing has been proved by you, Sylvia. You have merely alluded to a >> proof but never typed it out line by line. I claim that no such proof >> exists. Prove me wrong. > > Do you have difficulty understanding "I was not seeking to prove..." ? Simple: Dolan wants desperately to be top dog. No, it makes no sense at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Teofilo Totolos <tltt@tooioltt.lo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8mbj2$1f3ir$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615057 |
patdolan wrote: > I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute > the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The > LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the > relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. here's some time dilation for you from america, starting 01:26. We take the averages. Since averages are slowed down, it indicate a simulation universe, propagating averages. *_Ukraine_Update_July_12,_2023_* [01:26] https://bi%74%63hute,com/video/tpPiTOUlvOgE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd3ecaa2-8566-4873-8b60-5a80c36b67can@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615011 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: > > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year > > (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in > > London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big > > Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with > > the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated > using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! > > You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition > to very basic physics. > > Tom Roberts Yup, I knew it. The two don't reconcile. The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, versus 20 years of rocket proper time x 1/gamma = 10 years of elapsed earth time as predicted by LTs. The theory breaks down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 19:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <390aa501-436c-4d37-87b3-3c43567aa523n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615026 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:29:50 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: > > > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year > > > (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in > > > London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big > > > Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with > > > the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > > THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated > > using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! > > > > You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition > > to very basic physics. > > > > Tom Roberts > Yup, I knew it. The two don't reconcile. > > The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, versus 20 years of rocket proper time x 1/gamma = 10 years of elapsed earth time as predicted by LTs. The theory breaks down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has. Idiot. Incurable. Incurable idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0139be46-4f3d-406a-ad74-6af04f651e5cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615037 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7:04:37 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:29:50 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: > > > > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year > > > > (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in > > > > London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big > > > > Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with > > > > the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > > > THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated > > > using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! > > > > > > You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition > > > to very basic physics. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > Yup, I knew it. The two don't reconcile. > > > > The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, versus 20 years of rocket proper time x 1/gamma = 10 years of elapsed earth time as predicted by LTs. The theory breaks down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has. > Idiot. Incurable. Incurable idiot. Where are my lug studs and lug nuts, Dono?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07ae9e59-c92d-4048-b938-95e82ea908fen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615026 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year (proper time) out and back > trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in London. Thus, wrt the initial i-frame (earth), the coordinate time is 20yr out & 20yr back, giving a total earth time of 40 yr for the trip. That is, the earth clock indicates 40yr as the traveler reunites with it. > The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big Ben for the entire trip. Will the > twin paradox answer reconcile with the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? Yes. > The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years This gives 3.97, not 80. You are unable to do basic computations <sigh> > seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, ...The theory breaks > down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has. Nope. YOU broke down. You can't reason out what SR predicts, and you can't even calculate correctly. I did a few calcs & got the general formula. Computing: At coordinate time t=20 (the turnaround point) , the camera records 8.44. At coordinate time 39 the camera records 38.4. At coordinate time 40 the camera records 40, as expected. *In* *your* *face* !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc6770f0-0d53-49eb-af42-77bb0601e796n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615026 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year (proper time) out and back > trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in London. Thus, wrt the initial i-frame (earth), the coordinate time is 20yr out & 20yr back, giving a total earth time of 40 yr for the trip. That is, the earth clock indicates 40yr as the traveler reunites with it. > The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big Ben for the entire trip. Will the > twin paradox answer reconcile with the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? Yes. > The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years This gives 3.97, not 80. You are unable to do basic computations <sigh> > seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, ...The theory breaks > down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has. Nope. YOU broke down. You can't reason out what SR predicts, and you can't even calculate correctly. I did a few calcs & got the general formula. Computing: At coordinate time t=20 (the turnaround point) , the camera records 8.44. At coordinate time 39 the camera records 38.4. At coordinate time 40 the camera records 40, as expected. *In* *your* *face* !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 22:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0cd9190-272f-4d48-b32f-e849580fd1d8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615047 |
On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 06:23:53 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year (proper time) out and back > > trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in London. And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your insane bunch improper clocks keep measuring improper time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00845c6d-617b-498d-ab55-52c71c059922n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615047 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:23:53 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year (proper time) out and back > > trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in London. > Thus, wrt the initial i-frame (earth), the coordinate time is 20yr out & 20yr back, giving a total earth time > of 40 yr for the trip. That is, the earth clock indicates 40yr as the traveler reunites with it. > > The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big Ben for the entire trip. Will the > > twin paradox answer reconcile with the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > Yes. > > The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years > This gives 3.97, not 80. You are unable to do basic computations <sigh> > > > seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, ...The theory breaks > > down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has. > Nope. YOU broke down. You can't reason out what SR predicts, and you can't even calculate correctly. > > I did a few calcs & got the general formula. Computing: > At coordinate time t=20 (the turnaround point) , the camera records 8.44. > At coordinate time 39 the camera records 38.4. > At coordinate time 40 the camera records 40, as expected. > > *In* *your* *face* ! Show your work rotchm, but not before I correct you. 1) 20 years round trip spaceship proper time. 2) relative velocity .867c, gamma = 2 3) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for the 10 years spaceship proper time that the spaceship is outbound 10 years x sqrt[ (1 - .867)/(1 + .867) ] = 1950.44 revs of Big Ben's little hand recorded by onboard video camera = 2.67 years 4) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for the 10 years while the spaceship is inbound 10 years x sqrt[ (1 + .867)/(1 - .867) ] = 27,369.5 revs of Big Ben's little hand as recorded by onboard video camera = 37.47 years 5) Total revs of Big Ben's little hand recored by camera onboard spaceship = 29,320 = 40 years Here is the conflict 6) Now apply the LTs to find Big Ben's time dilation in the spaceship's frame. Elapsed time calculated for Big Ben when gamma = 2 20 years x 1/gamma = 10 years 7) The LTs give a total elapsed time of only 10 years on the earth when the spaceship returns from its 20 year trip. Whilst the rel-dop equations purport to show that the video camera onboard the spaceship will record 40 years of elapsed time as measured by the rotation of Big Ben's little hand. Now excuse me while I go out and check the lugs and studs on the drivers side.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 23:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a1ff0ec-5895-48ee-a94c-b8c19e4ef7a8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615053 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 10:58:06 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:23:53 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > > > An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year (proper time) out and back > > > trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in London. > > Thus, wrt the initial i-frame (earth), the coordinate time is 20yr out & 20yr back, giving a total earth time > > of 40 yr for the trip. That is, the earth clock indicates 40yr as the traveler reunites with it. > > > The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big Ben for the entire trip. Will the > > > twin paradox answer reconcile with the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > > Yes. > > > The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years > > This gives 3.97, not 80. You are unable to do basic computations <sigh> > > > > > seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, ...The theory breaks > > > down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has. > > Nope. YOU broke down. You can't reason out what SR predicts, and you can't even calculate correctly. > > > > I did a few calcs & got the general formula. Computing: > > At coordinate time t=20 (the turnaround point) , the camera records 8.44. > > At coordinate time 39 the camera records 38.4. > > At coordinate time 40 the camera records 40, as expected. > > > > *In* *your* *face* ! > Show your work rotchm, but not before I correct you. > > 1) 20 years round trip spaceship proper time. > > 2) relative velocity .867c, gamma = 2 > > 3) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for the 10 years spaceship proper time that the spaceship is outbound > 10 years x sqrt[ (1 - .867)/(1 + .867) ] = 1950.44 revs of Big Ben's little hand recorded by onboard video camera = 2.67 years > > 4) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for the 10 years while the spaceship is inbound > 10 years x sqrt[ (1 + .867)/(1 - .867) ] = 27,369.5 revs of Big Ben's little hand as recorded by onboard video camera = 37.47 years > > 5) Total revs of Big Ben's little hand recored by camera onboard spaceship = 29,320 = 40 years > > Here is the conflict > > 6) Now apply the LTs to find Big Ben's time dilation in the spaceship's frame. Elapsed time calculated for Big Ben when gamma = 2 > 20 years x 1/gamma = 10 years > > 7) The LTs give a total elapsed time of only 10 years on the earth when the spaceship returns from its 20 year trip. Whilst the rel-dop equations purport to show that the video camera onboard the spaceship will record 40 years of elapsed time as measured by the rotation of Big Ben's little hand. > > Now excuse me while I go out and check the lugs and studs on the drivers side. *rel-dop (relativistic doppler)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 20:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kh7e2fFro53U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615053 |
On 12-July-23 3:58 pm, patdolan wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:23:53 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: >> >>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year (proper time) out and back >>> trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in London. >> Thus, wrt the initial i-frame (earth), the coordinate time is 20yr out & 20yr back, giving a total earth time >> of 40 yr for the trip. That is, the earth clock indicates 40yr as the traveler reunites with it. >>> The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big Ben for the entire trip. Will the >>> twin paradox answer reconcile with the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? >> Yes. >>> The spaceship camera records sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] for a total of 80 earth years >> This gives 3.97, not 80. You are unable to do basic computations <sigh> >> >>> seen to have elapsed on Big Ben as recored by the onboard video camera, ...The theory breaks >>> down under the twins paradox. Just as it always has. >> Nope. YOU broke down. You can't reason out what SR predicts, and you can't even calculate correctly. >> >> I did a few calcs & got the general formula. Computing: >> At coordinate time t=20 (the turnaround point) , the camera records 8.44. >> At coordinate time 39 the camera records 38.4. >> At coordinate time 40 the camera records 40, as expected. >> >> *In* *your* *face* ! > Show your work rotchm, but not before I correct you. > > 1) 20 years round trip spaceship proper time. > > 2) relative velocity .867c, gamma = 2 > > 3) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for the 10 years spaceship proper time that the spaceship is outbound > 10 years x sqrt[ (1 - .867)/(1 + .867) ] = 1950.44 revs of Big Ben's little hand recorded by onboard video camera = 2.67 years > > 4) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for the 10 years while the spaceship is inbound > 10 years x sqrt[ (1 + .867)/(1 - .867) ] = 27,369.5 revs of Big Ben's little hand as recorded by onboard video camera = 37.47 years > > 5) Total revs of Big Ben's little hand recored by camera onboard spaceship = 29,320 = 40 years > > Here is the conflict > > 6) Now apply the LTs to find Big Ben's time dilation in the spaceship's frame. Elapsed time calculated for Big Ben when gamma = 2 > 20 years x 1/gamma = 10 years Just multiplying by 1/gamma is not applying the Lorentz Transform. Instead it is using popular-science style time dilation in a scenario to which it does not apply, and getting the wrong answer thereby. Try actually using the Lorentz Transform instead. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 04:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <174d7a37-9310-4efe-9189-be23b0c84478n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615053 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:58:06 AM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > Show your work rotchm, but not before I correct you. First, be hones & apply that to yourself. For instance, show how you got sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] = 80 <rest of confusions snipped> > The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic > doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. No it is not. It is YOU that is in conflict. You misapply SR and you fail basic calculations. No wonder you arrive at wrong conclusions. Math & physics is not for you. Find a different hobby. I suggest filming yourself dancing on tiktok...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 04:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca89914f-ff15-48d1-b113-6e917997bb9an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615069 |
On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 13:32:13 UTC+2, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:58:06 AM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > Show your work rotchm, but not before I correct you. > First, be hones & apply that to yourself. > For instance, show how you got sqrt[ .136/1.867 ] + sqrt[ 1.867/.136 ] = 80 > > <rest of confusions snipped> > > The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic > > doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. > No it is not. It is YOU that is in conflict. > You misapply SR and you fail basic calculations. No wonder you arrive at wrong conclusions. > Math & physics is not for you. Find a different hobby. I suggest filming yourself dancing on tiktok... And speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your insane bunch had to announce its oldest and very important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane postulates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 11:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vEpcD3x4Laaioe8Jh7dvhf5EdZQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615053 |
Le 12/07/2023 à 07:58, patdolan a écrit : > > 1) 20 years round trip spaceship proper time. Tr=20 (or T₀=20) > 2) relative velocity .867c, gamma = 2 Absooolutly. > 3) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for > the 10 years spaceship proper time that the spaceship is outbound > 10 years x sqrt[ (1 - .867)/(1 + .867) ] = 1950.44 revs of Big Ben's little hand > recorded by onboard video camera = 2.67 years Absolutly. > 4) apply real-dop to light coming to the spaceship from the face of Big Ben for > the 10 years while the spaceship is inbound > 10 years x sqrt[ (1 + .867)/(1 - .867) ] = 27,369.5 revs of Big Ben's little > hand as recorded by onboard video camera = 37.47 years Yes. > 5) Total revs of Big Ben's little hand recored by camera onboard spaceship = > 29,320 = 40 years Yes. > > Here is the conflict > > 6) Now apply the LTs to find Big Ben's time dilation in the spaceship's frame. > Elapsed time calculated for Big Ben when gamma = 2 > 20 years x 1/gamma = 10 years ? ? ? You are talking nonsense. :)) Your problem is that you are calculating the chronotropy, not the measured time. It is true that the chronotropy will act as you say, and that if it continues, the internal mechanism of terrestrial watches, for the rocket, will beat continuously half as fast. But you forget the anisochrony. To find the correct time, you have to combine the two effects. I've been saying that for years. It makes everyone laugh that a general practitioner is smarter than Albert Eintein and offers a different theory. Well, well, laugh, guys... What do you want me to tell you? Laugh like jerks and keep screwing around. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 06:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <654a0b13-b65e-4e65-a31d-2956be5499d3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615047 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: I goofed in my computations. > I did a few calcs & got the general formula. Computing: > At coordinate time t=20 (the turnaround point) , the camera records 8.44. Correction: It records 2.66 > At coordinate time 39 the camera records 38.4. Correction: It records 38.1 The general formula for this particular scenario being Sees(t) = t+0.867|t-20| -17.34 At time t=40, plugging, the camera records 40, as expected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web