On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 01-Aug-23 3:04 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do
> >>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain
> >>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you,
> >>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable
> >>> consequences.
> >> Perfect. Indisputable.
> > Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences.
>
> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have
> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative
> to B also to have magnitude |v|.

No, That's a wrong assumption. A and B each measures a different [V[ cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content.
You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not.
A clock second on the A clock /= a clock second on the B clock.

> Sylvia.

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
>
> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Quel est ce problème?
>
> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en
> quelques secondes si on me l'expose.
>
> R.H.

Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox

Bonne chance,

Patrice Doleon

Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit :
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
>>
>> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't.
>> >
>> > Sylvia.
>> Quel est ce problème?
>>
>> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en
>> quelques secondes si on me l'expose.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe.
>
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox
>
> Bonne chance,
>
> Patrice Doleon

---
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. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still
makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around
the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that
in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only
half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the
sun.

Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?

Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant
spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit.
---

Merci beaucoup Patrice, je vais traduire ça en français, et je vais
répondre si je peux.

R.H.

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:13:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit :
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't.
> >> >
> >> > Sylvia.
> >> Quel est ce problème?
> >>
> >> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en
> >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe.
> >
> > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox
> >
> > Bonne chance,
> >
> > Patrice Doleon
> ---
> 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. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still
> makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around
> the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that
> in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only
> half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the
> sun.
>
> Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
>
> Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant
> spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit.
> ---
>
> Merci beaucoup Patrice, je vais traduire ça en français, et je vais
> répondre si je peux.
>
> R.H.
Dr. Hachel, may I suggest that you appeal to the generous spirits of Python and rotchm, who I believe are Frenchman and French Canadian respectively, to translate the Big Ben Paradox a la francias. They have a command of both the English language and the Big Ben Paradox. I believe that Athel also has a command of your language and is also a keen student of the BBP.

Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit :
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit :
>> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
>>
>> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't.
>> >
>> > Sylvia.
>> Quel est ce problème?
>>
>> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en
>> quelques secondes si on me l'expose.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe.
>
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox
>
> Bonne chance,
>
> Patrice Doleon

If we admit that the rocket passes very far (say a thousand light years
from the earth) and transversely, we can imagine that it will have time to
remain transverse long enough to measure the effects of slowing down time
by 2 for quite a long time.

Moreover, the perimeter of revolution of the earth around the sun will be
smaller, because if the Oy axis is invariant, everyone knows that the Ox
axis will be halved.

We will have a period twice as long (it apparently turns less quickly) and
on a shorter circumference.

These two effects, if they were real, would favor a fall of the body in
the center of the system.

However, it is quite obvious that it is not because an extraterrestrial
rocket will pass 1000 light-years from the earth that the earth will
decide to fall on the sun. It's absurd.

So yes, the earth will appear to rotate half as fast as a period of
revolution, and on an ellipse a=R and b=R/2.

But that is only an appearance.

Let's take the problem differently. Suppose the rocket is hurtling towards
the earth at 0.8c. We imagine that the earth's orbit is drawn on a piece
of paper on the table and the rocket descends from the ceiling towards the
plane of the orbit drawn.

The rocket does not perceive any contraction of the distances, since it
approaches the plane without transverse displacement. The orbit is intact.

But on the other hand, terrestrial watches rotate three times faster, and
the earth rotates three times faster around its orbit.

It is obvious that if it were real, at this speed three times greater, it
would leave its axis. v'(tang_app)=v(tang).sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]

These are only effects of perspective.

R.H.

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:36 AM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 01-Aug-23 3:04 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:10:22 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do
> > >>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain
> > >>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you,
> > >>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable
> > >>> consequences.
> > >> Perfect. Indisputable.
> > > Wrong, Mutton Chops. Observer A approaches Observer B at a velocity that Observer A calculates to be the proper relative velocity v. But if Observer A then tries to calculate the coordinate relative velocity that Observer B should calculate, it turns out to be v*gamma^2. So there are very observable consequences. Inconsistent and contradictory consequences.
> >
> > If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have
> > magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative
> > to B also to have magnitude |v|.
> No, That's a wrong assumption. A and B each measures a different [V[ cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content.
> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not.
> A clock second on the A clock /= a clock second on the B clock.
>
> > Sylvia.

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:28:03 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit :
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't.
> >> >
> >> > Sylvia.
> >> Quel est ce problème?
> >>
> >> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en
> >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> >
> > Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe.
> >
> > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox
> >
> > Bonne chance,
> >
> > Patrice Doleon
> If we admit that the rocket passes very far (say a thousand light years
> from the earth) and transversely, we can imagine that it will have time to
> remain transverse long enough to measure the effects of slowing down time
> by 2 for quite a long time.
>
> Moreover, the perimeter of revolution of the earth around the sun will be
> smaller, because if the Oy axis is invariant, everyone knows that the Ox
> axis will be halved.
>
> We will have a period twice as long (it apparently turns less quickly) and
> on a shorter circumference.
>
> These two effects, if they were real, would favor a fall of the body in
> the center of the system.
>
> However, it is quite obvious that it is not because an extraterrestrial
> rocket will pass 1000 light-years from the earth that the earth will
> decide to fall on the sun. It's absurd.
>
> So yes, the earth will appear to rotate half as fast as a period of
> revolution, and on an ellipse a=R and b=R/2.
>
> But that is only an appearance.
>
> Let's take the problem differently. Suppose the rocket is hurtling towards
> the earth at 0.8c. We imagine that the earth's orbit is drawn on a piece
> of paper on the table and the rocket descends from the ceiling towards the
> plane of the orbit drawn.
>
> The rocket does not perceive any contraction of the distances, since it
> approaches the plane without transverse displacement. The orbit is intact..
>
> But on the other hand, terrestrial watches rotate three times faster, and
> the earth rotates three times faster around its orbit.
>
> It is obvious that if it were real, at this speed three times greater, it
> would leave its axis. v'(tang_app)=v(tang).sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
>
> These are only effects of perspective.
>
> R.H.
Thank you for your insights, Dr. Hachel. BTW, I notice that your posts to Sylvia continue to demonstrate an increasing warmth of sentiment and, dare I say, romance. Please keep this forum informed in the event of an engagement and/or nuptials.

On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have
>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative
>> to B also to have magnitude |v|.
>
> No, That's a wrong assumption.

It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two
postulates.

> A and B each measures a different [V[

A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the
same magnitude |v|.

> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content.
> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not.

No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time
of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles.

On 8/3/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 10:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:59 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do
>>>>>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain
>>>>>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you,
>>>>>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable
>>>>>> conse
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better.
>>>> You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for
>>>> your non-model to be better.
>>>
>>> Hey idiot.why my model is not a model???
>> Because you never followed the scientific method.
>>
>> Because you don't show that you derived any hypothesis from scientific
>> observations and evidence.
>>
>> Because you show no experiments which support your "theory".
>>
>> Because you don't show your own experimental results when
>> testing/developing your "theory".
>>
>> Because you provide no examples of your "theory" in practice, showing
>> others not familiar with it how it works/what happens.
>>
>> Because you make no predictions for the outcome of experiments from your
>> "theory".
>>
>> Because you don't provide any experiment that, when performed, will
>> produce one outcome if your "theory" is correct and another outcome if
>> your "theory" is wrong, and ordinary physics is correct. This would
>> validate or refute your "theory".
>>
> All these artificial becauses cause scientists failed to find the simple model that
> could lead to a simple model that can lead to a simple TOE......after 110 years of trying.

No, Stupid Ken. Each of those statements come from the scientific
method. All scientists need to follow the scientific method if they wish
to create a valid scientific model.

The lack of a TOE is irrelevant. It just means nobody has discovered a
valid TOE so far. And apparently any such TOE will not be simple.

On 2023-08-03 16:24:53 +0000, patdolan said:

> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:13:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit :> > On Thursday, August 3,
>> 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:> >> Le 03/08/2023 à
>> 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit :> >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan
>> wrote:> >>> >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a
>> problem. I don't.> >> >> >> > Sylvia.> >> Quel est ce problème?> >>> >>
>> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre
>> en> >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose.> >>> >> R.H.> >> > Voilà,
>> Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe.> >> >
>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox> >>
>> > Bonne chance,> >> > Patrice Doleon
>> ---> 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. He also observes that Big Ben's
>> little hand still> makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that
>> the earth makes around> the sun. From these two observations the
>> distant observer concludes that> in his inertial frame of reference the
>> earth's orbital velocity is only> half the velocity necessary to keep
>> the earth in stable orbit around the> sun.>> Will the earth spiral into
>> the sun? If not, why not?>> Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in
>> this paradox. Invariant> spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause
>> of the earth's orbit.> --->> Merci beaucoup Patrice, je vais traduire
>> ça en français, et je vais> répondre si je peux.>> R.H.
> Dr. Hachel, may I suggest that you appeal to the generous spirits of
> Python and rotchm, who I believe are Frenchman and French Canadian
> respectively, to translate the Big Ben Paradox a la francias. They
> have a command of both the English language and the Big Ben Paradox. I
> believe that Athel also has a command of your language

command is too strong, but I can make myself understood.

> and is also a keen student of the BBP.

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:11:07 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2023 10:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:59 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do
> >>>>>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain
> >>>>>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you,
> >>>>>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable
> >>>>>> conse
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better.
> >>>> You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for
> >>>> your non-model to be better.
> >>>
> >>> Hey idiot.why my model is not a model???
> >> Because you never followed the scientific method.
> >>
> >> Because you don't show that you derived any hypothesis from scientific
> >> observations and evidence.
> >>
> >> Because you show no experiments which support your "theory".
> >>
> >> Because you don't show your own experimental results when
> >> testing/developing your "theory".
> >>
> >> Because you provide no examples of your "theory" in practice, showing
> >> others not familiar with it how it works/what happens.
> >>
> >> Because you make no predictions for the outcome of experiments from your
> >> "theory".
> >>
> >> Because you don't provide any experiment that, when performed, will
> >> produce one outcome if your "theory" is correct and another outcome if
> >> your "theory" is wrong, and ordinary physics is correct. This would
> >> validate or refute your "theory".
> >>
> > All these artificial becauses cause scientists failed to find the simple model that
> > could lead to a simple model that can lead to a simple TOE......after 110 years of trying.
> No, Stupid Ken. Each of those statements come from the scientific
> method. All scientists need to follow the scientific method if they wish
> to create a valid scientific model.

Only such an idiot can beliave such absurd lies, stupid Mike.
Bur anyway, your Shit is not a valid scientific model.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions?
> > .
> Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions.

Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction.

On 8/3/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions?
>>> .
>> Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions.
>
> Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction.

The km long pion beam that Tom R. repeatedly mentions.

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> > How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions?
>> > .
>> Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions.
>
> Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction.

1=1+1; I'm not sure you undrestand. Show me where your stolen putrid
stupid theory can do the same. You disgusting excrement. All you do is to
evacuate. Nothing more. That's america.

Volney wrote:

> On 8/3/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions?
>>>> .
>>> Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions.
>>
>> Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction.
>
> The km long pion beam that Tom R. repeatedly mentions.

no, I challenge you, It needs to be circular, hence repetitive. The
detectors at start would necessarily coincide with those at the end. The
credit of america 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗔𝗔𝗔_𝘁𝗼_𝗔𝗔+. This is amazing. It looks
like an underdeveloped country.

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> >> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have
> >> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative
> >> to B also to have magnitude |v|.
> >
> > No, That's a wrong assumption.
> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two
> postulates.
Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong.

> > A and B each measures a different [V[
> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the
> same magnitude |v|.

No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time.
> > cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content.
You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not.
> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time
> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles.

No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not
Each cycle depend on the arrival of specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy
is dependent on the absolute motion of A and B. Since A and B are in different states of
absolute motion, each cycle will take a different interval of time (absolute time) to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute time) to complete a cycle of Cs.

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 21:01:19 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 2:53 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2023 7:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>> How do you know that my model doesn't't give the correct predictions?
> >>> .
> >> Because your not-a-model doesn't make ANY predictions.
> >
> > Give me an example how SR makes a correct prediction.
> The km long pion beam that Tom R. repeatedly mentions.

Do you mean that it correctly predicted that we're FORCED
to THE BEST WAY, stupid Mike?

Ken Seto wrote:

> No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same
> interval of TIME.....they do not Each cycle depend on the arrival of
> specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy is dependent on
> the absolute motion of A and B. Since A and B are in different states of
> absolute motion, each cycle will take a different interval of time
> (absolute time) to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute
> time) to complete a cycle of Cs.

you cannot detect motion inside 𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 closed 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲,
fucking stupid. Motion is irrelevant for the beings inside that
𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲. You are so cheap.

𝗨𝗞_𝗺𝗮𝘆_𝗸𝗶𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝘂𝘁_100,000_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_
https://r%74.com/news/580744-uk-ukrainian-refugee-status/

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 4:02:15 PM UTC-4, Rob Bibler wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same
> > interval of TIME.....they do not Each cycle depend on the arrival of
> > specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy is dependent on
> > the absolute motion of A and B. Since A and B are in different states of
> > absolute motion, each cycle will take a different interval of time
> > (absolute time) to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute
> > time) to complete a cycle of Cs.
> you cannot detect motion inside 𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 closed 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲,
> fucking stupid. Motion is irrelevant for the beings inside that
> 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹_𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲. You are so cheap.
I did not say I can detect absolute motion. I merely describe, according to my model, w,ha,t causes
time dilation.
>
> 𝗨𝗞_𝗺𝗮𝘆_𝗸𝗶𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝘂𝘁_100,000_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_
> https://r%74.com/news/580744-uk-ukrainian-refugee-status/

On 03-Aug-23 7:53 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 11:06:42 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 03-Aug-23 5:19 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 08:04:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 01-Aug-23 3:12 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 04:10:22 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 01-Aug-23 11:38 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable.
>>>>>>>>> Here's how:
>>>>>>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is
>>>>>>>>> contracting.
>>>>>>>>> This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation
>>>>>>>>> to give him constant light speed in all frames.
>>>>>>>>> The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows:
>>>>>>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames.
>>>>>>>>> 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick ....
>>>>>>>>> 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material
>>>>>>>>> length..
>>>>>>>>> 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said
>>>>>>>> there was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what did Einstein said what is contracting? The LPL as I said above?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do
>>>>>> measurements. That's it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it, lady?
>>>>> So, if anyone asked your insdane guru: "an observer
>>>>> moving with c/2 wrt solar system is going to measure
>>>>> a day. What result do you expect in the name of your
>>>>> insane physics?"
>>>>> The answer would be...?
>>>>
>>>> Such questions are ill-framed.
>>>
>>> Isn't Your relativity about predicting the results of measurements?
>>>
>>>> The observer is moving, so their distance
>>>> away from the Earth will vary over the course of day, and the time light
>>>> takes to travel from the Earth to the observer will also vary.
>>>
>>> It doesn't prevent him from measuring the intervals
>>> between the ticks of a clock on Earth, does it? Why
>>> can't he measure a day?
>> Measuring the interval between the ticks of a clock presents exactly the
>> same issues.
>
> And, well, Your relativity doesn't care about them at
> all and is brilliantly predicting the results. Isn't it?

It predicts the result of observing the ticks through a telescope, and
measuring the interval between them. The relativistic Doppler effect
formula gives the answer.

Sylvia.

On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have
>>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative
>>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|.
>>>
>>> No, That's a wrong assumption.
>> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two
>> postulates.

> Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong.

A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate.
>
>>> A and B each measures a different [V[

>> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the
>> same magnitude |v|.
>
> No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time.

They have the same value of time because the second has an exact
definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the
velocity having the same magnitude.

>>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content.

> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not.

>> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time
>> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles.
>
> No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not

Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is
DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong.

> Each cycle depend on the arrival of specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy

Your assertions are not valid arguments.

> is dependent on the absolute motion of A and B.

There is no such thing as absolute motion in any science model. All
motion is relative.

> Since A and B are in different states of
> absolute motion,

No such thing as absolute motion in any model of science. Therefore this
clause is meaningless nonsense.

> each cycle will take a different interval of time (absolute time)

Because the first part of the conditional clause is false, this blather
can be ignored.

> to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute time) to complete a cycle of Cs.

More blithering word salad.

Since your Muddle Mechanics is dependent on something that doesn't even
exist, it has no value whatsoever, so it is ignored.

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 00:03:50 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 03-Aug-23 7:53 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 11:06:42 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 03-Aug-23 5:19 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 08:04:23 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 01-Aug-23 3:12 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 04:10:22 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 01-Aug-23 11:38 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable.
> >>>>>>>>> Here's how:
> >>>>>>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames.
> >>>>>>>>> 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is
> >>>>>>>>> contracting.
> >>>>>>>>> This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation
> >>>>>>>>> to give him constant light speed in all frames.
> >>>>>>>>> The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows:
> >>>>>>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames.
> >>>>>>>>> 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick ....
> >>>>>>>>> 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material
> >>>>>>>>> length..
> >>>>>>>>> 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma.
> >>>>>>>>> 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said
> >>>>>>>> there was.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what did Einstein said what is contracting? The LPL as I said above?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do
> >>>>>> measurements. That's it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is it, lady?
> >>>>> So, if anyone asked your insdane guru: "an observer
> >>>>> moving with c/2 wrt solar system is going to measure
> >>>>> a day. What result do you expect in the name of your
> >>>>> insane physics?"
> >>>>> The answer would be...?
> >>>>
> >>>> Such questions are ill-framed.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't Your relativity about predicting the results of measurements?
> >>>
> >>>> The observer is moving, so their distance
> >>>> away from the Earth will vary over the course of day, and the time light
> >>>> takes to travel from the Earth to the observer will also vary.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't prevent him from measuring the intervals
> >>> between the ticks of a clock on Earth, does it? Why
> >>> can't he measure a day?
> >> Measuring the interval between the ticks of a clock presents exactly the
> >> same issues.
> >
> > And, well, Your relativity doesn't care about them at
> > all and is brilliantly predicting the results. Isn't it?
> It predicts the result of observing

And the answer of Your insane guru for my question
would be...?

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 04:37:29 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have
> >>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative
> >>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|.
> >>>
> >>> No, That's a wrong assumption.
> >> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two
> >> postulates.
>
> > Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong.
> A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

> >
> >>> A and B each measures a different [V[
>
> >> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the
> >> same magnitude |v|.
> >
> > No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time.
> They have the same value of time because the second has an exact
> definition, Stupid Ken.

Stop lying, stupid Mike, the definition of second is varying.

> Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is
> DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong.

Of course it can, stupid Mike. Your assertions are not valid arguments.
And, BTW,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have
> >>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative
> >>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|.
> >>>
> >>> No, That's a wrong assumption.
> >> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two
> >> postulates.
>
> > Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong.
> A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate.
> >
> >>> A and B each measures a different [V[
>
> >> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the
> >> same magnitude |v|.
> >
> > No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time.
> They have the same value of time because the second has an exact
> definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the
> velocity having the same magnitude.
> >>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content.
>
> > You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time.......it is not.
>
> >> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time
> >> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles.
> >
> > No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not
> Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is
> DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong.

stupid Mike, what does the following equation mean to you?
1 second in frame A= 1/gamma second in frame B
Does it say that a second in frame A=a second in frame B?
Gee you are stupid.....you have no idea what is TIME.

> > Each cycle depend on the arrival of specific amount of energy and the arrival of this energy
> Your assertions are not valid arguments.
> > is dependent on the absolute motion of A and B.
> There is no such thing as absolute motion in any science model. All
> motion is relative.
> > Since A and B are in different states of
> > absolute motion,
> No such thing as absolute motion in any model of science. Therefore this
> clause is meaningless nonsense.
> > each cycle will take a different interval of time (absolute time)
> Because the first part of the conditional clause is false, this blather
> can be ignored.
> > to arrive and thus a different amount of time (absolute time) to complete a cycle of Cs.
> More blithering word salad.
>
> Since your Muddle Mechanics is dependent on something that doesn't even
> exist, it has no value whatsoever, so it is ignored.

Le 04/08/2023 à 00:03, Sylvia Else a écrit :

> It predicts the result of observing the ticks through a telescope, and
> measuring the interval between them. The relativistic Doppler effect
> formula gives the answer.

> Sylvia.

In current kinematics, there is a longitudinal Doppler effect (for example
the Doppler effect relating to sounds).
But in relativity, it is difficult to speak of a single Doppler effect,
because there are two.
There were also two in classical mechanics, but the second effect is so
weak for low speeds (gamma factor) that it is rightly ignored.
I think (not out of arrogance, but out of love of what is true) that it
would be better on this point to adopt my terminology.
I call longitudinal relativistic effect the effect of the first degree due
to spatial anisochrony (or speed of light).
I call INTERNAL relativistic effect the effect of the second degree linked
to the relativistic factor gamma.
I refute the idea of transverse Doppler effect which leads to confusion.
When I see a rocket arriving at me, its displacement is purely
longitudinal (cosµ=-1).
It therefore has a longitudinal Doppler effect of the first degree.
But it also has a "transverse" Doppler effect as it does not move
transversely in any way. The term therefore seems to me liable to
misinterpretation. I therefore prefer the term INTERNAL Doppler effect.

These two Doppler effects are cumulative.

The object which moves in space will therefore undergo two Doppler effects
and the residual equations will become for the apparent speeds, for the
perceived proper durations, for the perceived lengths, and for the
received wavelengths.
Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
t'=t.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
L'=L.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
lambda'=lambda.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

Notion of relativistic Doppler effects, my love Sylvia.

R.H.