I wonder if Einstein too had thought about the Big Ben Paradox. Either before GR and/or after. He never mentions it, even though it is a straight up relativity defeater. Was he a phony?

patdolan wrote:
>
> I wonder if Einstein too had thought about the Big Ben Paradox. Either before GR and/or after. He never mentions it, even though it is a straight up relativity defeater. Was he a phony?

He's human.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 8:23:13 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if Einstein too had thought about the Big Ben Paradox. Either before GR and/or after. He never mentions it, even though it is a straight up relativity defeater. Was he a phony?
> He's human.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.
Tru dat, Starmaker.

Who in this forum can give us the details of the early-on falsification of SR by gravity? According to Bodkin, SR was kaput by 1907. This triggered Einstein's desperate campaign to deprecate, if not out and out cancel gravity. Einstein wasn't alone. David Hilbert raced Einstein for the honor of being the academic who slew Newton and his gravity. It was a photo finish in 1915 with Einstein taking the victor's crown; That crown stank of refuse then and it smell even worse 107 years later.

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:48:32 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system
> along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar
> system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope
> at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer
> measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his
> own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity.

Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock. This was explained to you before.

> In his inertial frame of reference, the distant observer measures the earth's orbital
> velocity to be only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
> the sun.

Again, that's false. The earth's orbital velocity is precisely what is necessary to keep the earth in its orbit. Re-labeling events obviously changes nothing. When you refer to what's "necessary" you are inarticulately referring to "according to the laws of physics", and indeed the field equations of general relativity are tensor equations, and hence if they are satisfied in terms of one coordinate system they are satisfied in terms of every coordinate system (within the diffeomorphism class). The interval along every trajectory between any two given events is invariant under any change of coordinate system, and hence the geodesic trajectories are the same. And, no, the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 does not imply the relation -1 = 1.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:17:27 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:48:32 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system
> > along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar
> > system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope
> > at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer
> > measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his
> > own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity.
>
> Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock. This was explained to you before.

This is interesting comment of your, Legion. Please explain to this forum the concept and consequences of relativistic time dilation.
>
> > In his inertial frame of reference, the distant observer measures the earth's orbital
> > velocity to be only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
> > the sun.
>
> Again, that's false. The earth's orbital velocity is precisely what is necessary to keep the earth in its orbit. Re-labeling events obviously changes nothing. When you refer to what's "necessary" you are inarticulately referring to "according to the laws of physics", and indeed the field equations of general relativity are tensor equations, and hence if they are satisfied in terms of one coordinate system they are satisfied in terms of every coordinate system (within the diffeomorphism class). The interval along every trajectory between any two given events is invariant under any change of coordinate system, and hence the geodesic trajectories are the same. And, no, the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 does not imply the relation -1 = 1.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 5:57:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:17:27 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:48:32 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system
> > > along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar
> > > system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope
> > > at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer
> > > measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his
> > > own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity.
> >
> > Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock. This was explained to you before.
> This is interesting comment of your, Legion. Please explain to this forum the concept and consequences of relativistic time dilation.
> >
More to the point, Legion my boy, is Einsteinian time dilation detectable? If so, how?
> > > In his inertial frame of reference, the distant observer measures the earth's orbital
> > > velocity to be only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
> > > the sun.
> >
> > Again, that's false. The earth's orbital velocity is precisely what is necessary to keep the earth in its orbit. Re-labeling events obviously changes nothing. When you refer to what's "necessary" you are inarticulately referring to "according to the laws of physics", and indeed the field equations of general relativity are tensor equations, and hence if they are satisfied in terms of one coordinate system they are satisfied in terms of every coordinate system (within the diffeomorphism class). The interval along every trajectory between any two given events is invariant under any change of coordinate system, and hence the geodesic trajectories are the same. And, no, the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 does not imply the relation -1 = 1.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:08:33 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system
> > > > along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar
> > > > system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope
> > > > at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer
> > > > measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his
> > > > own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity..
> > >
> > > Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock.
> >
> > Please explain the concept and consequences of relativistic time dilation.

The conceptnof time dilation is based on the fact that the inertia E/c^2 of any localized energy E implies that the special class of coordinate systems in which the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form are related by Lorentz transformations, x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g, which entails length contraction, time dilation, and the skew of simultaneity. As a consequence, in terms of any such system of coordinates x,t, the invariant elapsed characteristic time for any localized physical system moving along a given trajectory between two specified events is equal to the integral of sqrt(1-v^2) along that path.

> > [and] is time dilation detectable? If so, how?

Of course it is, in infinitely many ways. To understand those practical measurements, it is obviously first necessary to grasp what it is you are trying to measure. A canonical example, to clarify the phenomenon, is simply two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings.

On Friday, 16 June 2023 at 07:45:22 UTC+2, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:08:33 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system
> > > > > along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar
> > > > > system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope
> > > > > at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer
> > > > > measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his
> > > > > own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock.
> > >
> > > Please explain the concept and consequences of relativistic time dilation.
>
> The conceptnof time dilation is based on the fact that the inertia E/c^2 of any localized energy E implies that the special class of coordinate systems in which the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form are related by Lorentz transformations, x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g,

Stop fucking, poor halfbrain, you can't construct such coordinates,
even your idiot guru had to admit it in his GR shit.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden "improper"
clocks keep measuring t'=t in improper seconds.

patdolan wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 5:57:35 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:17:27 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:48:32 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system
> > > > along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar
> > > > system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope
> > > > at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer
> > > > measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his
> > > > own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity.
> > >
> > > Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock. This was explained to you before.
> > This is interesting comment of your, Legion. Please explain to this forum the concept and consequences of relativistic time dilation.
> > >
> More to the point, Legion my boy, is Einsteinian time dilation detectable?

Einstein himself doesn't believe in 'time dilation'.

'time dilation' is just an idea....just a thought. All in the mind.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:08:33 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system
> > > > > along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar
> > > > > system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope
> > > > > at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer
> > > > > measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his
> > > > > own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Again, that's false. After compensating his observations by the relativistic Doppler factor, the distant person finds that the rate is exactly equal to the rate of his own clock.
> > >
> > > Please explain the concept and consequences of relativistic time dilation.
>
> The conceptnof time dilation is based on the fact that the inertia E/c^2 of any localized energy E implies that the special class of coordinate systems in which the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form are related by Lorentz transformations, x'=(x-vt)g, t'=(t-vx)g, which entails length contraction, time dilation, and the skew of simultaneity. As a consequence, in terms of any such system of coordinates x,t, the invariant elapsed characteristic time for any localized physical system moving along a given trajectory between two specified events is equal to the integral of sqrt(1-v^2) along that path.
>
> > > [and] is time dilation detectable? If so, how?
>
> Of course it is, in infinitely many ways. To understand those practical measurements, it is obviously first necessary to grasp what it is you are trying to measure. A canonical example, to clarify the phenomenon, is simply two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings.

Legion, you wordy fool, let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation?

Den 16.06.2023 10:21, skrev patdolan:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
>>
>> Of course it is, in infinitely many ways. To understand those practical measurements, it is obviously first necessary to grasp what it is you are trying to measure. A canonical example, to clarify the phenomenon, is simply two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings.
>
> Legion, you wordy fool, let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation?

Let's call your rest frame K, and the passing frame K'.

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

You will see that the co-ordinate time of frame K' runs fast.

The elapsed time on your clock is less than the difference
between the readings of two consecutive passing clocks.

Equation (6)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 16 June 2023 at 15:18:38 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 16.06.2023 10:21, skrev patdolan:
> > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course it is, in infinitely many ways. To understand those practical measurements, it is obviously first necessary to grasp what it is you are trying to measure. A canonical example, to clarify the phenomenon, is simply two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings.
> >
> > Legion, you wordy fool, let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation?
> Let's call your rest frame K, and the passing frame K'.
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>
> You will see that the co-ordinate time of frame K' runs fast.

No, he won't. Anyone can check GPS, your delusions
are just some delusions.

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:18:38 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 16.06.2023 10:21, skrev patdolan:
> > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course it is, in infinitely many ways. To understand those practical measurements, it is obviously first necessary to grasp what it is you are trying to measure. A canonical example, to clarify the phenomenon, is simply two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings.
> >
> > Legion, you wordy fool, let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation?
> Let's call your rest frame K, and the passing frame K'.
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>
> You will see that the co-ordinate time of frame K' runs fast.
>
> The elapsed time on your clock is less than the difference
> between the readings of two consecutive passing clocks.
>
> Equation (6)
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Let's see how Legion answers. BTW Paul, did you specific a direction? I didn't.

Le 16/06/2023 à 15:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

I save the pdf.

Otherwise, what I must say, of all that I read of Paul B.Andersen, the
most beautiful sentence was: "When you want to learn the theory of
relativity, you should not hesitate to approach it on the principle of
small baby steps."

I found it wonderful.

One of the most beautiful sentences I have ever read.

R.H.

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 10:15:43 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/06/2023 à 15:18, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
>
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
>
> I save the pdf.
>
> Otherwise, what I must say, of all that I read of Paul B.Andersen, the
> most beautiful sentence was: "When you want to learn the theory of
> relativity, you should not hesitate to approach it on the principle of
> small baby steps."
>
> I found it wonderful.
>
> One of the most beautiful sentences I have ever read.
>
> R.H.
Dr. Hachel, the problem with Paul is that he never stopped taking baby steps. Many of us are already on the snow capped summit whilst Paul is still below the tree line. For instance, the Big Ben paradox never even entered his mind until I put it there. He was absolutely gobsmacked when he realized that one of the consequences of SR was a distant observer's absolute control over the fate of the world.

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:21:28 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> [I'll ignored the clear and concise answer you generously provided to my
> first question, because I have the attention span of a knat.]

You're welcome.

> > ... two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other.. Within
> > each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The
> > elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the
> > other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other
> > clocks at the passings.
>
> Let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me
> and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation?

As stated above, the elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings.

Remedial assistance: For example, if you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3.

The same applies to each clock in both rows, i.e., the relations are completely reciprocal. Each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks.

PD+50IQ wrote:
> Wait.. that's logically impossible! There is no possible way that each
> clock could run slow compared with the clocks in the other row.... no
> possible way... unless... unless... the synchronizations in the two rows
> are skewed relative to each other. But why should that be the case?
> Why wouldn't we just say the clocks are synchronized incorrectly? What
> possible justifiction could there be for synchronizing them this way...
> Oh, wait... you said they are *inertially* synchronized, right? Hmmm...
> So, are you saying the inertia of objects depends on their states of motion?
> That would explain why inertial synchronization results in skewed
> simultaneities... but that would be true if and only if energy itself has
> inertia. In fact, it requires that every localized quantity of energy E has
> inertia E/c^2. So, what you are saying is true if and only if E=mc^2.

Well done, PD+50IQ. It only took you slightly longer than it takes the average student to figure that out.

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 12:13:20 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:21:28 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > [I'll ignored the clear and concise answer you generously provided to my
> > first question, because I have the attention span of a knat.]
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > > ... two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within
> > > each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The
> > > elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the
> > > other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other
> > > clocks at the passings.
> >
> > Let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me
> > and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation?
> As stated above, the elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings.
>
> Remedial assistance: For example, if you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3.

So there is no relativistic doppler of T3 and T4 because I look at them just as they pass me? That is to say, the readings on T3 and T4 would be identical, respectively, if there were sliding to my right or my left?
>
> The same applies to each clock in both rows, i.e., the relations are completely reciprocal. Each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks..
>
> PD+50IQ wrote:
> > Wait.. that's logically impossible! There is no possible way that each
> > clock could run slow compared with the clocks in the other row.... no
> > possible way... unless... unless... the synchronizations in the two rows
> > are skewed relative to each other. But why should that be the case?
> > Why wouldn't we just say the clocks are synchronized incorrectly? What
> > possible justifiction could there be for synchronizing them this way...
> > Oh, wait... you said they are *inertially* synchronized, right? Hmmm...
> > So, are you saying the inertia of objects depends on their states of motion?
> > That would explain why inertial synchronization results in skewed
> > simultaneities... but that would be true if and only if energy itself has
> > inertia. In fact, it requires that every localized quantity of energy E has
> > inertia E/c^2. So, what you are saying is true if and only if E=mc^2.
>
> Well done, PD+50IQ. It only took you slightly longer than it takes the average student to figure that out.

Le 16/06/2023 à 19:29, patdolan a écrit :

> Dr. Hachel, the problem with Paul is that he never stopped taking baby steps.
> Many of us are already on the snow capped summit whilst Paul is still below the
> tree line. For instance, the Big Ben paradox never even entered his mind until I
> put it there. He was absolutely gobsmacked when he realized that one of the
> consequences of SR was a distant observer's absolute control over the fate of the
> world.

The Big Ben paradox?

I don't know this paradox.

What is this?

R.H.

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3.
>
> So there is no relativistic doppler of T3 and T4 because I look at them
> just as they pass me? That is to say, the readings on T3 and T4 would
> be identical, respectively, if there were sliding to my right or my left?

It doesn't matter which direction the rows are sliding, nor how the rows are oriented in space, etc. Each clock has a specific reading at each specified event (whether someone looks at them or not), including the events at which various clocks pass by each other. You could read this on the digital numeric readout when the clock is adjacent to you. It isn't a perceptual effect, it is a statement of objective fact: Each clock runs slow in terms of the relatively-moving row of clocks, as described above.

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 4:34:00 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3.
> >
> > So there is no relativistic doppler of T3 and T4 because I look at them
> > just as they pass me? That is to say, the readings on T3 and T4 would
> > be identical, respectively, if there were sliding to my right or my left?
> It doesn't matter which direction the rows are sliding, nor how the rows are oriented in space, etc. Each clock has a specific reading at each specified event (whether someone looks at them or not), including the events at which various clocks pass by each other. You could read this on the digital numeric readout when the clock is adjacent to you. It isn't a perceptual effect, it is a statement of objective fact: Each clock runs slow in terms of the relatively-moving row of clocks, as described above.
Now Legion, we need to discuss Lorentz contraction between T3 and T4. We also need to discuss the desynchronization of T3 and T4 when viewed from my FoR. Have you given these two issues any thought?

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 5:22:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3.
>
> Now [that you have answered my questions about time dilation (and, by the
> way, I extend my sincere thanks), could you please explain length contraction
> and the relativity of simultaneity to me?]

You're welcome, and both of those were already covered in the explanation in the previous messages. What in particular remains unclear to you?

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:17:19 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 5:22:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3.
> >
> > Now [that you have answered my questions about time dilation (and, by the
> > way, I extend my sincere thanks), could you please explain length contraction
> > and the relativity of simultaneity to me?]
>
> You're welcome, and both of those were already covered in the explanation in the previous messages. What in particular remains unclear to you?
No Legion, no! You stated to this forum that my wristwatches t4-t3 would be less than the T4-T3 that I observer. A naive observer would naturally conclude from this that my clock is running slower. I would need a priori knowledge of SR (put in my brain by God?) to conclude otherwise. You are a fool Legion--a fool's idea of a fool. Prove me wrong.

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 7:02:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > [Despite your clear and complete answers to my questions, I ignored all
> > > of them, so I remain completely clueless. Please explain at an even more
> > > rudimentary level.]
>
> > What in particular remains unclear to you?
>
> You stated that my wristwatch's t4-t3 would be less than the T4-T3 [of the
> clocks in the other row as they pass. An imbecile who did not pay attention
> to the rest of what you said might think that my clock is running slower.

The word "slower" is comparative, so ... slower than what? Remember, each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row, as explained above. So, a sentient and sober being with even a shred of intellectual integrity would recognize that the situation is not correctly described by the phrase "my clock is running slower". There is clearly something going on here that you do not (and perhaps, with your diseased brain, cannot) understand. Agreed?

> I would need a priori knowledge of SR (put in my brain by God?) to conclude otherwise.

That, of course, is a complete non-sequitur. What has been described to you is simply a set of objective verifiable facts, i.e., each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks, as explained above. Your brain is incapable of thinking of any rational explanation for these facts, but it doesn't involve any knowledge of special relativity to become aware of these objective facts. It does, however, require honesty and rationality.

On 2023-06-16 20:22:44 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 16/06/2023 à 19:29, patdolan a écrit :
>
>> Dr. Hachel, the problem with Paul is that he never stopped taking baby
>> steps. Many of us are already on the snow capped summit whilst Paul is
>> still below the tree line. For instance, the Big Ben paradox never
>> even entered his mind until I put it there. He was absolutely
>> gobsmacked when he realized that one of the consequences of SR was a
>> distant observer's absolute control over the fate of the world.
>
> The Big Ben paradox?
>
> I don't know this paradox.
>
> What is this?

Don't worry about it. It's something the crackpots' crackpot invented.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 10:15:15 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 7:02:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > [Despite your clear and complete answers to my questions, I ignored all
> > > > of them, so I remain completely clueless. Please explain at an even more
> > > > rudimentary level.]
> >
> > > What in particular remains unclear to you?
> >
> > You stated that my wristwatch's t4-t3 would be less than the T4-T3 [of the
> > clocks in the other row as they pass. An imbecile who did not pay attention
> > to the rest of what you said might think that my clock is running slower.
>
> The word "slower" is comparative, so ... slower than what? Remember, each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row, as explained above. So, a sentient and sober being with even a shred of intellectual integrity would recognize that the situation is not correctly described by the phrase "my clock is running slower". There is clearly something going on here that you do not (and perhaps, with your diseased brain, cannot) understand. Agreed?
> > I would need a priori knowledge of SR (put in my brain by God?) to conclude otherwise.
> That, of course, is a complete non-sequitur. What has been described to you is simply a set of objective verifiable facts, i.e., each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks, as explained above. Your brain is incapable of thinking of any rational explanation for these facts, but it doesn't involve any knowledge of special relativity to become aware of these objective facts. It does, however, require honesty and rationality.

Now Legion, you stated earlier to this tribunal that T4-T3 > t4-t3. I would like you to consider myself and my wristwatch and one single clock moving with respect to me. You have also stated elsewhere that such a clock when viewed by me with the unaided eye will tick at exactly the same rate as my wristwatch, no matter the magnitude of the relative velocity. Is this correct?