Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c

The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma. So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gamma to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.

Incorrect relativistic doppler: f = c/g(c-u)T_o

Correct relativistic doppler: f =cg/g(c-u)T_o = c/(c-u)T_o -> f = f_o [ c + u ]/[ c - u ]

Den 05.11.2023 04:27, skrev pdolan@adsistor.com:
> Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c
>
> The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.
The giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
the speed of an arbitrary observer relative to an object, can
affect the observed object.

Here you claim that what the moving source observes
can change the distances in the observers rest frame!!

> So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gamma to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.

Nonsense.

The measurement of the wavelength is done in the receiver's rest frame.
You don't have to use any theory to measure a distance in your rest
frame. The distance is what you measure it to be.
But you have to use a theory to calculate what the period
would be when measured in the rest frame of the source.
According to Newton the measured T = T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/T₀) = (c/(c-u))⋅f₀
According to SR the measured T = γ⋅T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/γ⋅T₀) = √((c+u)/(c-u))⋅f₀

You have over and over claimed that according to SR, an arbitrary
observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
object Big Ben.

If SR had claimed such a thing, you would never have heard of it.
Of obvious reasons!

>
> Incorrect relativistic doppler: f = c/g(c-u)T_o
>
> Correct relativistic doppler: f =cg/g(c-u)T_o = c/(c-u)T_o -> f = f_o [ c + u ]/[ c - u ]
>

And no physicist has during more than a century noticed
this glaring error in SR! Amazing, isn't it?

https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, 5 November 2023 at 13:17:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> And no physicist has during more than a century noticed
> this glaring error in SR! Amazing, isn't it?

Nope, the mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent -
and no physicist has noticed it, neither a worshipper nor
an opponent.

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.11.2023 04:27, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
> > Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c
> >
> > The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.
> The giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
> the speed of an arbitrary observer relative to an object, can
> affect the observed object.
>
> Here you claim that what the moving source observes
> can change the distances in the observers rest frame!!
> > So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT.. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gamma to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.
> Nonsense.
>
> The measurement of the wavelength is done in the receiver's rest frame.
> You don't have to use any theory to measure a distance in your rest
> frame. The distance is what you measure it to be.
> But you have to use a theory to calculate what the period
> would be when measured in the rest frame of the source.
> According to Newton the measured T = T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
> f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/T₀) = (c/(c-u))⋅f₀
> According to SR the measured T = γ⋅T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
> f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/γ⋅T₀) = √((c+u)/(c-u))⋅f₀
>
Agreed. But who gave Lorentz contraction permission to skip the haircut while it's Siamese twin, time dilation, sits down in the barber's chair for its mandatory cut?

The world of physics arbitrarily decided "let's ehf with this wave's period but leave its length alone.

You could with just as much justification derive a new relativists doppler that only depends on Lorentz contraction while leaving the period unchanged.. In fact, I may just perform that derivation. Now what should I call it....lemeseee...I've got it! The Big Dipper Doppler.

Regards,

TMHBTRD

> You have over and over claimed that according to SR, an arbitrary
> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> object Big Ben.
>
> If SR had claimed such a thing, you would never have heard of it.
> Of obvious reasons!
> >
> > Incorrect relativistic doppler: f = c/g(c-u)T_o
> >
> > Correct relativistic doppler: f =cg/g(c-u)T_o = c/(c-u)T_o -> f = f_o [ c + u ]/[ c - u ]
> >
> And no physicist has during more than a century noticed
> this glaring error in SR! Amazing, isn't it?
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/pdf/AberrationDoppler.pdf
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skrev pdolan@adsistor.com:
> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 05.11.2023 04:27, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
>>> Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c
>>>
>>> The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.

>> The giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
>> the speed of an arbitrary observer relative to an object, can
>> affect the observed object.
>>
>> Here you claim that what the moving source observes
>> can change the distances in the observers rest frame!!

>>> So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gamma to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.

>> Nonsense.
>>
>> The measurement of the wavelength is done in the receiver's rest frame.
>> You don't have to use any theory to measure a distance in your rest
>> frame. The distance is what you measure it to be.
>> But you have to use a theory to calculate what the period
>> would be when measured in the rest frame of the source.
>> According to Newton the measured T = T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
>> f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/T₀) = (c/(c-u))⋅f₀
>> According to SR the measured T = γ⋅T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
>> f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/γ⋅T₀) = √((c+u)/(c-u))⋅f₀
>>

> Agreed. But who gave Lorentz contraction permission to skip the haircut while it's Siamese twin, time dilation, sits down in the barber's chair for its mandatory cut?

Thanks for yet again confirming the giant gap in your logic.

> The world of physics arbitrarily decided "let's ehf with this wave's period but leave its length alone.
>
> You could with just as much justification derive a new relativists doppler that only depends on Lorentz contraction while leaving the period unchanged. In fact, I may just perform that derivation. Now what should I call it...lemeseee...I've got it! The Big Dipper Doppler.
>
> Regards,

I can understand why you make no attempt to defend your belief:

>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>> object.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
> > On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 05.11.2023 04:27, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
> >>> Behold this fairly standard 8 min. derivation of the relativistic Doppler
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJciUSRX74c
> >>>
> >>> The gap in the logic lies in the fact that from the standpoint of the source, the unit length on the co-moving coordinates of the observer will be shortened by 1/gamma.
>
> >> The giant gap in your logic is that you think that according to SR,
> >> the speed of an arbitrary observer relative to an object, can
> >> affect the observed object.
> >>
> >> Here you claim that what the moving source observes
> >> can change the distances in the observers rest frame!!
>
> >>> So according to the source, the observer will experience a coordinate wavelength of gamma x lambda in addition to a longer coordinate period of gT. These two gammas should cancel at 4:20 of the video. But the expositor never applies the second gamma to the wavelength. Just like the myopic Einstein failed to do.
>
> >> Nonsense.
> >>
> >> The measurement of the wavelength is done in the receiver's rest frame..
> >> You don't have to use any theory to measure a distance in your rest
> >> frame. The distance is what you measure it to be.
> >> But you have to use a theory to calculate what the period
> >> would be when measured in the rest frame of the source.
> >> According to Newton the measured T = T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
> >> f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/T₀) = (c/(c-u))⋅f₀
> >> According to SR the measured T = γ⋅T₀ and the Doppler shift is:
> >> f = (c/(c-u))⋅(1/γ⋅T₀) = √((c+u)/(c-u))⋅f₀
> >>
>
> > Agreed. But who gave Lorentz contraction permission to skip the haircut while it's Siamese twin, time dilation, sits down in the barber's chair for its mandatory cut?
> Thanks for yet again confirming the giant gap in your logic.
> > The world of physics arbitrarily decided "let's ehf with this wave's period but leave its length alone.
> >
> > You could with just as much justification derive a new relativists doppler that only depends on Lorentz contraction while leaving the period unchanged. In fact, I may just perform that derivation. Now what should I call it...lemeseee...I've got it! The Big Dipper Doppler.
> >
> > Regards,
> I can understand why you make no attempt to defend your belief:
>
> >> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >> object.

Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Den 06.11.2023 12:16, skrev pdolan@adsistor.com:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> I can understand why you make no attempt to defend your belief:
>>
>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>>>> object.

> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.

Thanks for yet another confirmation of your utter ignorance of SR!

'nuff said!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 11/6/2023 6:16 AM, pdolan@adsistor.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skrev pdo...@adsistor.com:
>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>>>> object.
>
> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.

WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>> object.
> >
> > Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.

Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.

On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>>>>>> object.
>>>
>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
>
> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.

That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
nothing to compare his age to.

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> >>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>>>> object.
> >>>
> >>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> >> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> >> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> >> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
> >
> > Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
> nothing to compare his age to.

Volroney,

Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object. But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ. A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime. This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other. Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.

On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
>>>
>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
>> nothing to compare his age to.
>
> Volroney,
>
> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.

Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.

> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.

No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
what you think.

> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.

Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
short period their worldlines were identical.

> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.

Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.

> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.

Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.

Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
I suppose) as each other.

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> >>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>>>>>> object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> >>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> >>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> >>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
> >>>
> >>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
> >> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
> >> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
> >> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
> >> nothing to compare his age to.
> >
> > Volroney,
> >
> > Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
> > But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
> what you think.
> > A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
> short period their worldlines were identical.
> > This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
> > Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
>
> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
> I suppose) as each other.
Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:

Once upon a time twins were born to wealthy mother and father. The twins were the only children of the wealthy parents. One day the more fiendish of the twins over heard his father on the phone with his lawyer. The father was instructing the lawyer to structure his will as follows. Not a penny was to be dispersed to either twin whilst both were still alive. All the money was to go to the surviving twin after the death of one of them.

The fiendish twin considered murder but decided it was too risky. After reading Einstein's theory of special relativity the fiendish twin realized that he could legally and easily insure that his brother died first by simply acquiring motion relative to his twin. So he took an Einsteinian trip out and back that took 20 years. When he got back he learned that his twin had been dead for 40 years. Thus, the fiendish twin's Einsteinian inheritance plan worked and he got all the money.

On Monday, 6 November 2023 at 21:30:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> >>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>>>> object.
> >>>
> >>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> >> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> >> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> >> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
> >
> > Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
> second per second

Sure, but, as seen on GPS, it won't be your ISO idiocy.

Den 07.11.2023 03:08, skrev patdolan:
>
> Once upon a time twins were born to wealthy mother and father. The twins were the only children of the wealthy parents. One day the more fiendish of the twins over heard his father on the phone with his lawyer. The father was instructing the lawyer to structure his will as follows. Not a penny was to be dispersed to either twin whilst both were still alive. All the money was to go to the surviving twin after the death of one of them.
>
> The fiendish twin considered murder but decided it was too risky. After reading Einstein's theory of special relativity the fiendish twin realized that he could legally and easily insure that his brother died first by simply acquiring motion relative to his twin. So he took an Einsteinian trip out and back that took 20 years. When he got back he learned that his twin had been dead for 40 years. Thus, the fiendish twin's Einsteinian inheritance plan worked and he got all the money.

A fine gedanken.

It clearly demonstrates that only way the fiendish twin
can affect when his twin will die is by murdering him.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>>>>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
>>>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
>>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
>>>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
>>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
>>>> nothing to compare his age to.
>>>
>>> Volroney,
>>>
>>> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
>> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
>> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
>> what you think.
>>> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
>> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
>> short period their worldlines were identical.
>>> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
>> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
>>> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
>>
>> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
>> I suppose) as each other.

> Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
>
[snip]

And the point of this is...?

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B.. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>>>>>>>> object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> >>>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> >>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> >>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
> >>>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
> >>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
> >>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
> >>>> nothing to compare his age to.
> >>>
> >>> Volroney,
> >>>
> >>> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
> >> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
> >> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
> >> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
> >>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
> >> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
> >> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
> >> what you think.
> >>> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
> >> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
> >> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
> >> short period their worldlines were identical.
> >>> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
> >> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
> >>> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
> >> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
> >>
> >> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
> >> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
> >> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
> >> I suppose) as each other.
>
> > Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
> >
> [snip]
>
> And the point of this is...?
The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.

On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>>>>>>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
>>>>>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
>>>>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
>>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
>>>>>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
>>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
>>>>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
>>>>>> nothing to compare his age to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Volroney,
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
>>>> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
>>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
>>>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
>>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
>>>> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
>>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
>>>> what you think.
>>>>> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
>>>> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
>>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
>>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
>>>>> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
>>>> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
>>>>> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
>>>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
>>>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
>>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
>>>> I suppose) as each other.
>>
>>> Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> And the point of this is...?

> The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.

No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
twin to die.

> Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.

You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
spacetime.

On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 07:04:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B.. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> object.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> >>>>>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> >>>>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> >>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
> >>>>>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
> >>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
> >>>>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
> >>>>>> nothing to compare his age to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Volroney,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
> >>>> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
> >>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
> >>>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
> >>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
> >>>> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
> >>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
> >>>> what you think.
> >>>>> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
> >>>> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
> >>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
> >>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
> >>>>> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
> >>>> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
> >>>>> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
> >>>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
> >>>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
> >>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
> >>>> I suppose) as each other.
> >>
> >>> Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> And the point of this is...?
>
> > The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
> No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
> twin to die.
> > Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
> You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
> stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
> lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
> before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
> reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
> usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
> spacetime.

Gedanken = fabricated.
BTW. Let's extend it a little bit. Suppose the twins were born
2200-01-01. One of them (male) started the trip 2210-01-01.
Returned 2220-01-01 (as seen by the other, female) after
3300 days of his "proper time".
Do they agree about the date? What was the date of return
seen by the male?
Then they had a child, born 2222-01-01 (seen by female).
What is the birthdate seen by the child?
Any answers for these very simple questions, my dear relativistic
halfbrains?

Den 09.11.2023 06:53, skrev patdolan:
> The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.

Let's have a look at a real experiment,
the Hafele & Keating experiment.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf

A thought experiment based on H&K:

https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

The question is what SR/GR predicts, so this should do.

The "home triplet" A is the clock on the ground.
The "travelling triplet" B is the clock in the west going aeroplane.
The "travelling triplet" C is the clock in the east going aeroplane.

Event 1: B and C take off when clocks A, B and C show 0.
Event 2: B and C have travelled around the Earth and are back at A.

GR predicts:
At event 2, the clocks will show:
Clock A: τA = 172320.000000000 seconds
Clock B: τB = 172320.000000325 seconds
Clock C: τC = 172319.999999910 seconds

The question is now:
Do you claim that according to GR:

1) Triplet B has aged more than A and C and has successfully
decelerated the ageing of A and B.
or

2) Triplet C has aged less than A and B and has successfully
accelerated the ageing of A and B.
or

3) Triplet A has aged less than B but more than C, and has
successfully accelerated the ageing of B and decelerated
the ageing of C.

Please explain which triplet's motion can affect the rate of ageing
of the other triplets.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:04:32 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B.. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> object.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> >>>>>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> >>>>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> >>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
> >>>>>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
> >>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
> >>>>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
> >>>>>> nothing to compare his age to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Volroney,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
> >>>> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
> >>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
> >>>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
> >>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
> >>>> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
> >>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
> >>>> what you think.
> >>>>> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
> >>>> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
> >>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
> >>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
> >>>>> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
> >>>> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
> >>>>> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
> >>>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
> >>>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
> >>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
> >>>> I suppose) as each other.
> >>
> >>> Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> And the point of this is...?
>
> > The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
> No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
> twin to die.
> > Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
> You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
> stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
> lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
> before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
> reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
> usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
> spacetime.

Traveling twin: "In this Einsteinian universe in which my twin brother and I live, it is within my power to make my twin brother die of natural causes before I die of natural causes. Or to have us both die of natural causes at approximately the same biological age. I get to choose."

On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 13:05:42 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.11.2023 06:53, skrev patdolan:
> > The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe. Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
> Let's have a look at a real experiment,
> the Hafele & Keating experiment.

Why not take a look at real GPS instead? Its
clocks were prepared by professionals, not by
religious maniacs indoctrinated by an
insane guru.

On 11/9/2023 2:47 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 07:04:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
>>>>>>>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
>>>>>>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
>>>>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
>>>>>>>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
>>>>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
>>>>>>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
>>>>>>>> nothing to compare his age to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Volroney,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
>>>>>> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
>>>>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
>>>>>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
>>>>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
>>>>>> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
>>>>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
>>>>>> what you think.
>>>>>>> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
>>>>>> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
>>>>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
>>>>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
>>>>>>> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
>>>>>> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
>>>>>>> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
>>>>>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
>>>>>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
>>>>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
>>>>>> I suppose) as each other.
>>>>
>>>>> Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
>>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> And the point of this is...?
>>
>>> The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
>> No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
>> twin to die.
>>> Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
>> You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
>> stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
>> lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
>> before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
>> reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
>> usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
>> spacetime.
>
> Gedanken = fabricated.
> BTW. Let's extend it a little bit. Suppose the twins were born
> 2200-01-01. One of them (male) started the trip 2210-01-01.
> Returned 2220-01-01 (as seen by the other, female) after
> 3300 days of his "proper time".
> Do they agree about the date? What was the date of return
> seen by the male?

That will be a problem in the future. Right now, ordinary people
experience close to Newtonian time which is the same everywhere for
everyone, so the calendars are the same for everyone. In reality it's
only valid for those near stationary on the geoid and there are no
travelers going at relativistic speeds. Yet.

I would say that likely calendars etc. will be earth based and some sort
of special rules will be needed for such travelers.

> Then they had a child, born 2222-01-01 (seen by female).

Ewww, a child by twin siblings? You are a sick man, janitor!

> What is the birthdate seen by the child?

2222-01-01.

Again, it will depend on how time laws are redone in the future, but it
seems rather irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is what should
the returned traveling twin list as his age if his birth is, say, 20
years ago but he aged only 19 years on his return because he experienced
19 years of proper time.

My *guess*, without thinking things through, is everyone should have two
"ages", one is the number of Earth calendar years since birth and the
other one's own proper time. For everyone right now, both will be the
same (to within microseconds, except astronauts which may differ by
milliseconds) so it doesn't matter. But the traveling twin will have
different values, he returns 20 years after his birth (according to
Earth calendars and his 20 year old twin) but will be 19 years old
physically, mentally etc.

On 11/9/2023 8:52 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:04:32 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:

>>>> And the point of this is...?
>>
>>> The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
>> No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
>> twin to die.
>>> Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
>> You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
>> stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
>> lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
>> before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
>> reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
>> usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
>> spacetime.
>
> Traveling twin: "In this Einsteinian universe in which my twin brother and I live, it is within my power to make my twin brother die of natural causes before I die of natural causes. Or to have us both die of natural causes at approximately the same biological age. I get to choose."

That is not causing the twin to die. The good twin stays at home and
eventually dies of old age. The evil twin leaves and returns, and having
experienced less aging than his brother is physically younger than his
brother, even if both are the same age on an earth calendar (but seem my
recent reply to the janitor). If he lives to old (physical) age he dies
after his brother and gets the money, if they use earth calendar for
dates of death and not biological aging (highly likely).

On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 18:43:36 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/9/2023 2:47 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 07:04:32 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/9/2023 12:53 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 9:22:49 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2023 9:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/6/2023 3:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 2:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2023 6:1
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 1:54:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Den 06.11.2023 01:02, skre
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:17:42 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an arbitrary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer moving somewhere in the universe can affect the observed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> object.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Surely you agree with this statement, Paul. Einstein believed it with his whole heart and soul and even gave us an example: one twin can climb into a rocket ship and by virtue of his arbitrary motion in the universe can make his twin brother age at a much faster rate.
> >>>>>>>>>> WTF, Pat? The stay at home twin ages at his own normal rate, regardless
> >>>>>>>>>> of what anyone else is doing. That is what it means that each clock
> >>>>>>>>>> ticks at its usual rate of 1 second per second.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Good point Volroney. It does indeed work both ways. The arbitrary choice and arbitrary motion of the stay at home twin NOT to accelerate in tandem with the traveling twin causes the traveling twin to age slower.
> >>>>>>>> That is also false. The traveling twin's own watch still ticks one
> >>>>>>>> second per second, regardless of what his twin does at home. It would be
> >>>>>>>> the same even if there wasn't a stay-at-home twin, other than there'd be
> >>>>>>>> nothing to compare his age to.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Volroney,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Paul B. Anderson testified to the forum that the arbitrary motions of an observer in the universe cannot affect the observed object.
> >>>>>> Exactly. The stay-at-home twin does not affect the traveling twin's
> >>>>>> time, no observer can affect the observed. The stay-at-home twin doesn't
> >>>>>> even need to exist, the traveling twin's experience is unaffected.
> >>>>>>> But Albert Einstein and Pat Dolan beg to differ.
> >>>>>> No, Einstein agrees with this, which is why he created this gedanken in
> >>>>>> the first place! Pat Dolan doesn't understand relativity so nobody cares
> >>>>>> what you think.
> >>>>>>> A morula that splits into two 8 cell zygotes will form identical twins conceived at precisely the same event in spacetime. Each of the zygotes has the power to affect the rate at which the other experiences time in the universe relative to that original conception-event in spacetime.
> >>>>>> Why would you say that? Once the initial cell cluster splits, they are
> >>>>>> separate, and cannot affect each other's worldlines, even though for a
> >>>>>> short period their worldlines were identical.
> >>>>>>> This is achieve by the arbitrary choice of the arbitrary motion of one zygote relative to the other.
> >>>>>> Which doesn't affect the other's timeline.
> >>>>>>> Which is in precise contradiction to the testimony of Paul B. Anderson.
> >>>>>> Because you have it wrong, while Paul has it correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe you are confused because currently, all twin pairs are on earth so
> >>>>>> none travel at relativistic speeds into space and return, so we will
> >>>>>> always see twin pairs to be the same age (to within microseconds or so,
> >>>>>> I suppose) as each other.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Volroney here is my gadanken to go with the Twin's Paradox. I call it the Inheritance Paradox. I will soon become a classic. Here it is:
> >>>>>
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>> And the point of this is...?
> >>
> >>> The point is this: according to Einstein's special relativity, relativistic observers directly, concretely and irrevocably affect the objects they observe.
> >> No, they do not. There is nothing the evil twin did to cause the other
> >> twin to die.
> >>> Even at intergalactic distances. Einstein provided his own example of this phenomenon with the twins paradox wherein one twin successfully accelerated the aging of the other twin by means of acquiring at relativistic velocity with respect to the latter.
> >> You simply don't understand the gedanken if you think that! The
> >> stay-at-home twin wasn't aged faster by the other, he lived the normal
> >> lifespan, or at least long enough to be present at the reunion. And
> >> before you go say something stupid, no, the stay-at-home twin didn't
> >> reduce aging of the other twin by doing nothing. Both twins aged at the
> >> usual rate, one year per year. They just took different paths through
> >> spacetime.
> >
> > Gedanken = fabricated.
> > BTW. Let's extend it a little bit. Suppose the twins were born
> > 2200-01-01. One of them (male) started the trip 2210-01-01.
> > Returned 2220-01-01 (as seen by the other, female) after
> > 3300 days of his "proper time".
> > Do they agree about the date? What was the date of return
> > seen by the male?
> That will be a problem in the future.

Sure, stupid Mike, your moronic gedanken with twins and
rockets and almost-light-speed is not a matter of present.
You're soooooo smart to notice... And the answer tp
my question is...?

> I would say that likely calendars etc. will be earth based and some sort
> of special rules will be needed for such travelers.

I take it as - tey agree.
Well, stupid Mike, I would agree: the real time will
remain Earth based with some "special rules"
ignoring your physics and its madness.
Glad we've agreed.

> Again, it will depend on how time laws are redone in the future, but it
> seems rather irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is what should
> the returned traveling twin list as his age if his birth is, say, 20
> years ago but he aged only 19 years on his return because he experienced
> 19 years of proper time.

No, stupids Mike - mistaken as always. It doesn't matter at
all. So called "proper time" never had any significance and
will never gain it.