On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:07:36 AM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:35:30 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> And in each of these frames individually the totals around the loop work out
> >> perfectly, and in the case of stitching the four together we take account of the
> >> disjoint simultaneity mappings to show that, again, the totals work out perfectly.
> >> Remember?
> >
> > ... he must conclude that the light flashes 10 times for every complete trip the
> > traveler makes around the polygon.
> No. What is wrong with your brain? This was explicitly explained, with the disjoint
> simultaneity mappings. Remember? Look at my very first reply to you in this thread.
> > Your posts seem to look at the entire trip around the polygon from say only the F1
> > perspective as the traveler makes his entire trip around the polygon, but you never
> > explain how the traveler always receives 40 flashes each trip around the polygon...
>
> That is a lie. Look at my very first reply in this thread (and repeated in several
> subsequent posts). If there is something in the explanation that you think is wrong
> or unclear, go ahead and point it out.

In your first reply, you wrote:
"No, you are mixing up the flash rate of the source and the reception rate of the traveler, which are not the same because in terms of F1 (the traveler's co-moving inertial coordinate system on edge 1) the source is approaching the traveler from almost directly ahead (due to aberration), so even though, in terms of F1, the pulse rate of the source is just 0.5 pulses per second, the traveler encounters pulses arriving at 2 per second."

In my reply to Tom Roberts' post, I said the traveler can use the reception rate of the flashes to determine the flash rate at the source. Let me repeat how he does this. Before the traveler goes around the polygon, he is in an inertial reference frame that is moving with velocity V=c*sqrt(3)/2 with respect to the light source at rest in frame F0. While in that inertial reference frame, the flashing light is moving parallel to the x-axis and x'-axis and is a y distance away from the x-axis of 5*sqrt(3)/2 light-seconds. The light wavelength and intensity and other parameters of the light source are known by all. Now before the traveler starts his journey around the polygon he has a record of all flashes received and based on the wavelength, intensity, angle, light source velocity, etc., the record shows the distance each light pulse traveled before it was received. So to determine the flash rate, the traveler can now simply look at the time between any two consecutive received flashes, look at the reception parameters of each of the two light pulses and thus know the distance each pulse traveled from the source, and knowing the relative velocity of the source compute the flash rate.
So with this data in hand, now the traveler starts his journey around the polygon. Each time he receives a pulse, he uses the light parameters received and looks at the data taken before the trip to determine how far the flash traveled and records the time shown on his clock when that pulse was received. Knowing the velocity of the light source, and the distance each flash of light traveled before it was received he computes the flash rate. In doing so, no matter where he is in his journey around the polygon, he computes that the light source is always flashing at a constant rate of one flash every two seconds.
What is wrong with doing that?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:26:13 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In your first reply, you wrote:

The relevant paragraph in my first reply, in which I anticipated that you would eventually ask your current question, was

"As usual, you're not really asking the question that would clear up your confusion. The question you should be asking is, if the rate of proper time dtau/dt of the source is 1/2 in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4, how is it possible that the rate of the traveler's proper time in terms of F0 on each of those edges is also 1/2, so the traveler's total elapsed time around the square is 1/2 of the sources elapsed time? The answer is that the simultaneity mappings between the events of the traveler and the events of the source in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4 are disjoint. The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time, and the same for F2, and F3 and F4, so you might naively think that the total elapsed time for the source is 10 seconds, but that is not true, because the F2 simultaneity mapping maps the traveler's start time at the beginning of edge 2 to an event at the source that is 30/4 seconds *after* the event that maps to the traveler at the end of edge 1. Similarly for the other edge transitions, so this disjoint mapping omits 30 seconds of the source's proper time during each trip around the square."

Do you understand that this is the answer to your question? If this is not clear to you, can you explain what specifically seems unclear?

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:24:09 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:26:13 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > In your first reply, you wrote:
> The relevant paragraph in my first reply, in which I anticipated that you would eventually ask your current question, was
>
> "As usual, you're not really asking the question that would clear up your confusion. The question you should be asking is, if the rate of proper time dtau/dt of the source is 1/2 in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4, how is it possible that the rate of the traveler's proper time in terms of F0 on each of those edges is also 1/2, so the traveler's total elapsed time around the square is 1/2 of the sources elapsed time? The answer is that the simultaneity mappings between the events of the traveler and the events of the source in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4 are disjoint. The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time, and the same for F2, and F3 and F4, so you might naively think that the total elapsed time for the source is 10 seconds, but that is not true, because the F2 simultaneity mapping maps the traveler's start time at the beginning of edge 2 to an event at the source that is 30/4 seconds *after* the event that maps to the traveler at the end of edge 1. Similarly for the other edge transitions, so this disjoint mapping omits 30 seconds of the source's proper time during each trip around the square."
>
> Do you understand that this is the answer to your question? If this is not clear to you, can you explain what specifically seems unclear?

Instead of referring to F1, F2, F3, and F4 just state things in terms of the traveler's clock. Based on only the traveler's clock, how many seconds elapse on the traveler's clock between each flash of the light source at rest in the center of the polygon that is flashing in F0 at a rate of one flash per second as measured in F0?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "As usual, you're not really asking the question that would clear up your confusion. The question you should be asking is, if the rate of proper time dtau/dt of the source is 1/2 in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4, how is it possible that the rate of the traveler's proper time in terms of F0 on each of those edges is also 1/2, so the traveler's total elapsed time around the square is 1/2 of the sources elapsed time? The answer is that the simultaneity mappings between the events of the traveler and the events of the source in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4 are disjoint. The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time, and the same for F2, and F3 and F4, so you might naively think that the total elapsed time for the source is 10 seconds, but that is not true, because the F2 simultaneity mapping maps the traveler's start time at the beginning of edge 2 to an event at the source that is 30/4 seconds *after* the event that maps to the traveler at the end of edge 1. Similarly for the other edge transitions, so this disjoint mapping omits 30 seconds of the source's proper time during each trip around the square."
> >
> > Do you understand that this is the answer to your question? If this is not clear to you, can you explain what specifically seems unclear?
>
> Instead of referring to F1, F2, F3, and F4 just state things in terms of the traveler's clock.

Everything has been stated in terms of the traveler's clock, the center clock, the perimeter clocks, and each of the coordinate systems. Nothing has been omitted. It has been explained from every possible point of view. For example, "The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time"? Do you see? This correlates the proper times of each clock with the coordinate time and with each other.

> Based on only the traveler's clock, how many seconds elapse on the traveler's clock
> between each flash of the light source at rest in the center of the polygon that is
> flashing in F0 at a rate of one flash per second as measured in F0?

That is precisely what the above paragraph explains in detail. Remember, any comparison of the time intervals on the clocks involves a mapping between their events, and that mapping can be given by the time coordinate of a system of coordinates, or it can be given by light signals, or by any other means. The means you are particularly interested in (for some reason) are by the time coordinates of inertial coordinate systems. Everything is fully explained by the above paragraph from my first post. If there is anything about that that still remains unclear to you, go ahead and point it out. But do not lie and say that it does not describe the proper time on the traveling clock, when it explicitly does.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Instead of referring to F1, F2, F3, and F4 just state things in terms of the traveler's clock.

Cretin

Every time the "traveler" turns a corner, he changes reference frame, from F0 to F1 at the first corner, from F1 to F2 at the second corner....You annoying requests demonstrate your level of utter cretinism.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:43:01 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > "As usual, you're not really asking the question that would clear up your confusion. The question you should be asking is, if the rate of proper time dtau/dt of the source is 1/2 in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4, how is it possible that the rate of the traveler's proper time in terms of F0 on each of those edges is also 1/2, so the traveler's total elapsed time around the square is 1/2 of the sources elapsed time? The answer is that the simultaneity mappings between the events of the traveler and the events of the source in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4 are disjoint. The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time, and the same for F2, and F3 and F4, so you might naively think that the total elapsed time for the source is 10 seconds, but that is not true, because the F2 simultaneity mapping maps the traveler's start time at the beginning of edge 2 to an event at the source that is 30/4 seconds *after* the event that maps to the traveler at the end of edge 1. Similarly for the other edge transitions, so this disjoint mapping omits 30 seconds of the source's proper time during each trip around the square."
> > >
> > > Do you understand that this is the answer to your question? If this is not clear to you, can you explain what specifically seems unclear?
> >
> > Instead of referring to F1, F2, F3, and F4 just state things in terms of the traveler's clock.
> Everything has been stated in terms of the traveler's clock, the center clock, the perimeter clocks, and each of the coordinate systems. Nothing has been omitted. It has been explained from every possible point of view. For example, "The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time"? Do you see? This correlates the proper times of each clock with the coordinate time and with each other.
> > Based on only the traveler's clock, how many seconds elapse on the traveler's clock
> > between each flash of the light source at rest in the center of the polygon that is
> > flashing in F0 at a rate of one flash per second as measured in F0?
> That is precisely what the above paragraph explains in detail. Remember, any comparison of the time intervals on the clocks involves a mapping between their events, and that mapping can be given by the time coordinate of a system of coordinates, or it can be given by light signals, or by any other means. The means you are particularly interested in (for some reason) are by the time coordinates of inertial coordinate systems. Everything is fully explained by the above paragraph from my first post. If there is anything about that that still remains unclear to you, go ahead and point it out. But do not lie and say that it does not describe the proper time on the traveling clock, when it explicitly does.

So if the traveler continually receives 10 pulses per each leg he travels along, and from his point of view the light source is flashing at a rate of one pulse every two seconds, and it takes the traveler 20 seconds to complete each trip around the square and he receives 40 pulses each and every time he travels a complete trip around the square doesn't the traveler have to conclude that the light is flashing much faster than one flash every two seconds? If he travels 1000 times around the square he receives 40,000 flashes. His clock shows 20,000 seconds have elapsed, doesn't simple arithmetic make him conclude that the light is flashing at a rate of two flashes per second instead of the rate of one flash every two seconds? How does he say all these other flashes occurred?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 20:43:01 UTC+2, Al Coe wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > "As usual, you're not really asking the question that would clear up your confusion. The question you should be asking is, if the rate of proper time dtau/dt of the source is 1/2 in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4, how is it possible that the rate of the traveler's proper time in terms of F0 on each of those edges is also 1/2, so the traveler's total elapsed time around the square is 1/2 of the sources elapsed time? The answer is that the simultaneity mappings between the events of the traveler and the events of the source in terms of F1, F2, F3, and F4 are disjoint. The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time, and the same for F2, and F3 and F4, so you might naively think that the total elapsed time for the source is 10 seconds, but that is not true, because the F2 simultaneity mapping maps the traveler's start time at the beginning of edge 2 to an event at the source that is 30/4 seconds *after* the event that maps to the traveler at the end of edge 1. Similarly for the other edge transitions, so this disjoint mapping omits 30 seconds of the source's proper time during each trip around the square."
> > >
> > > Do you understand that this is the answer to your question? If this is not clear to you, can you explain what specifically seems unclear?
> >
> > Instead of referring to F1, F2, F3, and F4 just state things in terms of the traveler's clock.
> Everything has been stated in terms of the traveler's clock, the center clock, the perimeter clocks, and each of the coordinate systems. Nothing has been omitted. It has been explained from every possible point of view. For example, "The simultaneity mapping in terms of F1 maps 5 seconds of the traveler's proper time to 2.5 seconds of the source's proper time"? Do you see? This correlates the proper times of each clock with the coordinate time and with each other.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane Shit TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:39:05 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So if the traveler continually receives 10 pulses per each leg he travels along,
> and from his point of view the light source is flashing at a rate of one pulse
> every two seconds...

Stop. It is not correct (or even meaningful) to say "from his point of view", it is
correct to say "In terms of the inertial coordinate system in which he is at rest
during that leg, the central light source is emitting pulses at the rate 0.5 per
second".

> and it takes the traveler 20 seconds to complete each trip around the square
> and he receives 40 pulses each and every time he travels a complete trip
> around the square doesn't the traveler have to conclude that the light is
> flashing much faster than one flash every two seconds?

He, like everyone else, concludes that the light source is doing exactly what
it is doing, just as everything else is doing exactly what everything else is doing.
All of this has been explained to you quite explicitly, in terms of all possible
systems of coordinates, including coordinate systems formed by stitching
together a set of inertial coordinate systems into a non-inertial coordinate
system. You are failing to grasp the disjoint mapping provided by the
foliations of F1, F2, F3, and F4 that account for the complete mapping of the
light source, including all of its pulses. When I explained this, with the
30/4 second spans in my original message, why did you ignore it? And
why are you still ignoring it?

> How does he say all these other flashes occurred?

He says it the same way every sane and rational person says it, by noting
the times and places of all the events under discussion, and noting that
they are all perfectly correct and consistent. Unlike you, any sane and
rational person is capable of grasping the disjoint mapping between the
worldlines of the traveler and the light source given by the foliations of
F1, F2, F3, and F4.

Look, all you are doing is being confused by the standard twins paradox,
i.,e., if the home twin ages more slowly than the traveling twin in terms of
his outbound inertial coordinate system, and also in terms of his return
inertial coordinate system, how can the home twin be older when they
re-unite? This is just a two-sided polygon, instead of a four-sided polygon.
The explanation is exactly the same. Now do you understand?

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:58:42 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:39:05 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > So if the traveler continually receives 10 pulses per each leg he travels along,
> > and from his point of view the light source is flashing at a rate of one pulse
> > every two seconds...
>
> Stop. It is not correct (or even meaningful) to say "from his point of view", it is
> correct to say "In terms of the inertial coordinate system in which he is at rest
> during that leg, the central light source is emitting pulses at the rate 0.5 per
> second".
> > and it takes the traveler 20 seconds to complete each trip around the square
> > and he receives 40 pulses each and every time he travels a complete trip
> > around the square doesn't the traveler have to conclude that the light is
> > flashing much faster than one flash every two seconds?
> He, like everyone else, concludes that the light source is doing exactly what
> it is doing, just as everything else is doing exactly what everything else is doing.
> All of this has been explained to you quite explicitly, in terms of all possible
> systems of coordinates, including coordinate systems formed by stitching
> together a set of inertial coordinate systems into a non-inertial coordinate
> system. You are failing to grasp the disjoint mapping provided by the
> foliations of F1, F2, F3, and F4 that account for the complete mapping of the
> light source, including all of its pulses. When I explained this, with the
> 30/4 second spans in my original message, why did you ignore it? And
> why are you still ignoring it?
> > How does he say all these other flashes occurred?
> He says it the same way every sane and rational person says it, by noting
> the times and places of all the events under discussion, and noting that
> they are all perfectly correct and consistent. Unlike you, any sane and
> rational person is capable of grasping the disjoint mapping between the
> worldlines of the traveler and the light source given by the foliations of
> F1, F2, F3, and F4.
>
> Look, all you are doing is being confused by the standard twins paradox,
> i.,e., if the home twin ages more slowly than the traveling twin in terms of
> his outbound inertial system, and also in terms of his return
> inertial coordinate system, how can the home twin be older when they
> re-unite? This is just a two-sided polygon, instead of a four-sided polygon.
> The explanation is exactly the same. Now do you understand?

Okay, explain the two-sided "polygon". In rest frame F0, let the length from A to B be 20*sqrt(3)/2 light-seconds. Let the traveler travel along that length with a velocity V = c*sqrt(3)/2. Let there be a light at rest in F0 at A that flashes at one flash per second in F0 when it is turned on. Now let the traveler go from A to B. When he starts his journey at A, he turns on the flashing light at rest in F0. When he arrives at B, he travels back to A with a velocity -V = c*sqrt(3)/2 . As shown on the traveler's clock, when he arrives at B, the elapsed time is 10 seconds. During this 10 seconds, the traveler says that light has flashed 5 times since he turned it on, and he has received 2 of the light flashes. During the return trip, from B to A, the elapsed time shown on his clock is another 10 seconds. With the light flashing once every two seconds, the traveler says that the light flashed 5 times during the return leg of the journey. However, if the light is flashing at a rate of one flash per second in F0, and the back and forth journey as shown by a clock at rest in F0 at A is 40 seconds, then the traveler receives 40 flashes during the trip. So how does the traveler explain where and when the 30 extra flashes occurred?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On April 25, Coe wrote:
>> If a clock always shows a lesser value than another clock, and that difference in
>> times between the two clocks keeps getting greater and greater with every reading
>> of the clocks,
> .....
> If this is still unclear to you, could you describe what specifically is unclear?

He doesn't understand that the question:
"When the traveler reaches the northeast corner of the square, what does
the clock at the center, in F0, read?"

is meaningless.

To be charitable, this concept is the biggest hurdle for the student to clear.

--
Rich

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 00:58:42 UTC+2, Al Coe wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:39:05 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > So if the traveler continually receives 10 pulses per each leg he travels along,
> > and from his point of view the light source is flashing at a rate of one pulse
> > every two seconds...
>
> Stop. It is not correct (or even meaningful) to say "from his point of view", it is
> correct to say "In terms of the inertial coordinate system in which he is at rest
> during that leg, the central light source is emitting pulses at the rate 0.5 per
> second".
> > and it takes the traveler 20 seconds to complete each trip around the square
> > and he receives 40 pulses each and every time he travels a complete trip
> > around the square doesn't the traveler have to conclude that the light is
> > flashing much faster than one flash every two seconds?
> He, like everyone else, concludes that the light source is doing exactly what
> it is doing, just as everything else is doing exactly what everything else is doing.
> All of this has been explained to you quite explicitly, in terms of all possible
> systems of coordinates, including coordinate systems formed by stitching
> together a set of inertial coordinate systems into a non-inertial coordinate
> system. You are failing to grasp the disjoint mapping provided by the
> foliations of F1, F2, F3, and F4 that account for the complete mapping of the
> light source, including all of its pulses. When I explained this, with the
> 30/4 second spans in my original message, why did you ignore it? And
> why are you still ignoring it?
> > How does he say all these other flashes occurred?
> He says it the same way every sane and rational person says it, by noting
> the times and places of all the events under discussion, and noting that
> they are all perfectly correct and consistent. Unlike you, any sane and
> rational person is capable of grasping the disjoint mapping between the
> worldlines of the traveler and the light source given by the foliations of
> F1, F2, F3, and F4.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your insane religion TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > the times and places of all the events under discussion, and noting that
> > they are all perfectly correct and consistent...the disjoint mapping between
> > the worldlines of the traveler and the light source given by the foliations of
> > F1, F2, F3, and F4 that account for the complete mapping of the
> > light source, including all of its pulses. When I explained this, with the
> > 30/4 second spans in my original message, why did you ignore it?

The above explanation, that you ignored yet again, answers the questions that you now repeat. Why not actually read and try to understand the answer? Do you understand the 30/4 seconds?

> > Look, all you are doing is being confused by the standard twins paradox,
> > i.,e., if the home twin ages more slowly than the traveling twin in terms of
> > his outbound inertial system, and also in terms of his return
> > inertial coordinate system, how can the home twin be older when they
> > re-unite? This is just a two-sided polygon, instead of a four-sided polygon.
> > The explanation is exactly the same. Now do you understand?
>
> Okay, explain the two-sided "polygon" [standard twins paradox... sheesh].
> How does the traveler explain where and when the 30 extra flashes occurred?

In terms of F1 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the outbound leg) the traveler arrives at B (after a lapse of 10 seconds on his clock) simultaneous with the emitter reaching 5 seconds of elapsed time on its clock. This corresponds to the fact that in terms of F1 the source clock is running at half speed. Now, in terms of F2 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the return leg), the turn-around event at B is simultaneous with the source event after 35 seconds have elapsed on its clock, so from that event to the reunion the source has 5 seconds of elapsed time, and the traveler has 10, which corresponds to the fact that in terms of F2 the source clock is running at half speed. What you stupidly call the "extra flashes" are emitted by the source clock between 5 sec and 35 sec on its clock.

Again, this is just Relativity 101, the basic explanation of the twins scenario. It is truly astonishing that you are not acquainted with this. As explained to you repeatedly, the simultaneity mapping between source and traveler given by F1 and F2 are disjoint, so although either one of them individually is a one-to-one monotonic mapping, splicing them together does not yield a monotonic one-to-one mapping. Now do you finally understand?

Le 28/04/2022 à 20:24, "sepp623@yahoo.com" a écrit :
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:58:42 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:39:05 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > So if the traveler continually receives 10 pulses per each leg he travels
>> along,
>> > and from his point of view the light source is flashing at a rate of one pulse
>> > every two seconds...
>>
>> Stop. It is not correct (or even meaningful) to say "from his point of view", it
>> is
>> correct to say "In terms of the inertial coordinate system in which he is at
>> rest
>> during that leg, the central light source is emitting pulses at the rate 0.5 per
>>
>> second".
>> > and it takes the traveler 20 seconds to complete each trip around the square
>> > and he receives 40 pulses each and every time he travels a complete trip
>> > around the square doesn't the traveler have to conclude that the light is
>> > flashing much faster than one flash every two seconds?
>> He, like everyone else, concludes that the light source is doing exactly what
>> it is doing, just as everything else is doing exactly what everything else is
>> doing.
>> All of this has been explained to you quite explicitly, in terms of all possible
>>
>> systems of coordinates, including coordinate systems formed by stitching
>> together a set of inertial coordinate systems into a non-inertial coordinate
>> system. You are failing to grasp the disjoint mapping provided by the
>> foliations of F1, F2, F3, and F4 that account for the complete mapping of the
>> light source, including all of its pulses. When I explained this, with the
>> 30/4 second spans in my original message, why did you ignore it? And
>> why are you still ignoring it?
>> > How does he say all these other flashes occurred?
>> He says it the same way every sane and rational person says it, by noting
>> the times and places of all the events under discussion, and noting that
>> they are all perfectly correct and consistent. Unlike you, any sane and
>> rational person is capable of grasping the disjoint mapping between the
>> worldlines of the traveler and the light source given by the foliations of
>> F1, F2, F3, and F4.
>>
>> Look, all you are doing is being confused by the standard twins paradox,
>> i.,e., if the home twin ages more slowly than the traveling twin in terms of
>> his outbound inertial system, and also in terms of his return
>> inertial coordinate system, how can the home twin be older when they
>> re-unite? This is just a two-sided polygon, instead of a four-sided polygon.
>> The explanation is exactly the same. Now do you understand?
>
> Okay, explain the two-sided "polygon". In rest frame F0, let the length from A
> to B be 20*sqrt(3)/2 light-seconds. Let the traveler travel along that length
> with a velocity V = c*sqrt(3)/2. Let there be a light at rest in F0 at A that
> flashes at one flash per second in F0 when it is turned on. Now let the traveler
> go from A to B. When he starts his journey at A, he turns on the flashing light at
> rest in F0. When he arrives at B, he travels back to A with a velocity -V =
> c*sqrt(3)/2 . As shown on the traveler's clock, when he arrives at B, the elapsed
> time is 10 seconds. During this 10 seconds, the traveler says that light has
> flashed 5 times since he turned it on, and he has received 2 of the light flashes.
> During the return trip, from B to A, the elapsed time shown on his clock is
> another 10 seconds. With the light flashing once every two seconds, the traveler
> says that the light flashed 5 times during the return leg of the journey.
> However, if the light is flashing at a rate of one flash per second in F0, and
> the back and forth journey as shown by a clock at rest in F0 at A is 40 seconds,
> then the traveler receives 40 flashes during the trip. So how does the traveler
> explain where and when the 30 extra flashes occurred?
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX

Very good question, but I don't understand two things.
1. Where does your surprise come from?

2. There's a Chinese proverb that says "It's better to look stupid for 5
minutes than to stay that way all your life."
This means that when you don't understand something, don't hesitate to
ask.

Why don't you ask Dr. Richard Hachel who is probably the world's leading
expert on this issue?

He will answer you.

R.H.

Le 28/04/2022 à 21:06, Al Coe a écrit :
> In terms of F1 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the
> outbound leg) the traveler arrives at B (after a lapse of 10 seconds on his clock)
> simultaneous with the emitter reaching 5 seconds of elapsed time on its clock.
> This corresponds to the fact that in terms of F1 the source clock is running at
> half speed. Now, in terms of F2 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler
> is at rest on the return leg), the turn-around event at B is simultaneous with the
> source event after 35 seconds have elapsed on its clock, so from that event to the
> reunion the source has 5 seconds of elapsed time, and the traveler has 10, which
> corresponds to the fact that in terms of F2 the source clock is running at half
> speed. What you stupidly call the "extra flashes" are emitted by the source clock
> between 5 sec and 35 sec on its clock.
>
> Again, this is just Relativity 101, the basic explanation of the twins scenario.
> It is truly astonishing that you are not acquainted with this. As explained to
> you repeatedly, the simultaneity mapping between source and traveler given by F1
> and F2 are disjoint, so although either one of them individually is a one-to-one
> monotonic mapping, splicing them together does not yield a monotonic one-to-one
> mapping. Now do you finally understand?

I did not understand anything.

R.H.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:06:59 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > the times and places of all the events under discussion, and noting that
> > > they are all perfectly correct and consistent...the disjoint mapping between
> > > the worldlines of the traveler and the light source given by the foliations of
> > > F1, F2, F3, and F4 that account for the complete mapping of the
> > > light source, including all of its pulses. When I explained this, with the
> > > 30/4 second spans in my original message, why did you ignore it?
> The above explanation, that you ignored yet again, answers the questions that you now repeat. Why not actually read and try to understand the answer? Do you understand the 30/4 seconds?
> > > Look, all you are doing is being confused by the standard twins paradox,
> > > i.,e., if the home twin ages more slowly than the traveling twin in terms of
> > > his outbound inertial system, and also in terms of his return
> > > inertial coordinate system, how can the home twin be older when they
> > > re-unite? This is just a two-sided polygon, instead of a four-sided polygon.
> > > The explanation is exactly the same. Now do you understand?
> >
> > Okay, explain the two-sided "polygon" [standard twins paradox... sheesh].
> > How does the traveler explain where and when the 30 extra flashes occurred?
>
> In terms of F1 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the outbound leg) the traveler arrives at B (after a lapse of 10 seconds on his clock) simultaneous with the emitter reaching 5 seconds of elapsed time on its clock. This corresponds to the fact that in terms of F1 the source clock is running at half speed. Now, in terms of F2 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the return leg), the turn-around event at B is simultaneous with the source event after 35 seconds have elapsed on its clock, so from that event to the reunion the source has 5 seconds of elapsed time, and the traveler has 10, which corresponds to the fact that in terms of F2 the source clock is running at half speed. What you stupidly call the "extra flashes" are emitted by the source clock between 5 sec and 35 sec on its clock.
>
> Again, this is just Relativity 101, the basic explanation of the twins scenario. It is truly astonishing that you are not acquainted with this. As explained to you repeatedly, the simultaneity mapping between source and traveler given by F1 and F2 are disjoint, so although either one of them individually is a one-to-one monotonic mapping, splicing them together does not yield a monotonic one-to-one mapping. Now do you finally understand?

Tell me how many flashes the traveler says have been emitted by the flashing light when the traveler is at B. Is it 5 flashes, or is 10 flashes or is it 35 or if he accelerates to some other V is it some different number. Does the number of flashes the traveler says is emitted when he is at B change as he accelerates? If so, why does he say his acceleration has any effect on the number of flashes or on the flash rate emitted by a non-accelerating object?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:28:12 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > In terms of F1 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the outbound leg) the traveler arrives at B (after a lapse of 10 seconds on his clock) simultaneous with the emitter reaching 5 seconds of elapsed time on its clock. This corresponds to the fact that in terms of F1 the source clock is running at half speed. Now, in terms of F2 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the return leg), the turn-around event at B is simultaneous with the source event after 35 seconds have elapsed on its clock, so from that event to the reunion the source has 5 seconds of elapsed time, and the traveler has 10, which corresponds to the fact that in terms of F2 the source clock is running at half speed. What you stupidly call the "extra flashes" are emitted by the source clock between 5 sec and 35 sec on its clock.
>
> Tell me how many flashes the traveler says have been emitted by the flashing light
> when the traveler is at B.

The traveler says the same thing that everyone says, about everything, always. For example, in terms of F1, the number of flashes emitted at the source between the coordinate time when he departed and the coordinate time when he reached B is 5, because 5 seconds of the source's proper time has elapsed in that span of time. This was answered up above.

> Does the number of flashes the traveler says is emitted when he is at B
> change as he accelerates?

You must mean "have been emitted", not "is emitted". Again, these are all objective facts that do not change. In terms of F1, the number of flashes emitted at the source between the coordinate time at the origin and the coordinate time of event B is 5. In terms of F2, the number of flashes emitted at the source between the coordinate time of the origin and the coordinate time of event B is 35. In terms of F0 the number of flashes between the coordinate time at the origin and the coordinate time of event B is 20. These are all objective facts, and none of them depend on the traveler's state of motion, given the time and place of event B. It isn't even necessary to have a traveler. This was answered up above.

Now do you understand?

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 01:56:49 UTC+2, Al Coe wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:28:12 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > In terms of F1 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the outbound leg) the traveler arrives at B (after a lapse of 10 seconds on his clock) simultaneous with the emitter reaching 5 seconds of elapsed time on its clock. This corresponds to the fact that in terms of F1 the source clock is running at half speed. Now, in terms of F2 (the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest on the return leg), the turn-around event at B is simultaneous with the source event after 35 seconds have elapsed on its clock, so from that event to the reunion the source has 5 seconds of elapsed time, and the traveler has 10, which corresponds to the fact that in terms of F2 the source clock is running at half speed. What you stupidly call the "extra flashes" are emitted by the source clock between 5 sec and 35 sec on its clock.
> >
> > Tell me how many flashes the traveler says have been emitted by the flashing light
> > when the traveler is at B.
> The traveler says the same thing that everyone says, about everything, always.

Only in your delusional gedankenwelt, poor
halfbrain. Real observers and real clocks
aren't and never will be obeying your mad
schema.