On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 05:33:24 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:43:06 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I didn't reply to your post because, besides the criticism on my use of words,
> For two parties to understand each other, they must know the meaning of the words they use.
> The words you use are ill defined and not necessary.

So are, unfortunately, the words you and your fellow idiots
use.

Den 09.11.2023 23:49, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 5:18:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 08.11.2023 22:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs
>>>
>>> Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.
>>>
>>> A photon, in the visible light range, is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.
>>>
>>> The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.
>>>
>>> This process continues forever, without any losses, while A clock is accumulating 1.0000000 μs counts.
>> OK!
>>>
>>> The arrangement in K' moves at v speed wrt the origin at K, where a clock tK is located (it also ticks at 1.0000000 μs.
>>>
>>> Both clocks (tK and tA) are reset to zero exactly when A pass by the origin K, and it forces the emission of the photon.
>> OK!
>>>
>>> Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
>> No, this has noting to do with Einstein's way of synchronizing
>> clocks in inertial frames.
>>
>> Two clocks are set equal (to zero) when they pass each other,
>> that's all.
>> We will also assume that both clocks are placed at the origin of
>> their respective rest frames.
>>
>> We then have:
>>
>> K':-tA------B-------->x'->v
>> K :-tK--------------->x

>>>
>>> The speed v = 0.9 c = 269813212 m/s
>>>
>>> WHAT SR (LORENTZ) SAYS THAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS.
>>> γ = 2.294157339

>> In the following we will use L as the distance
>> between the mirrors. We can put in numbers later.
>>
>> To find what SR says, we use the Lorentz transform.
>> We have three event of interest.
>>
>> E0: tA and tK are aligned and the photon is emitted from A.
>> E1: the photon is reflected from B.
>> E2: the photon is reflected from A
>>
>> Let's find the coordinates of these event's in K and K':
>>
>> γ = 1/√(1 −v²/c²) = 2.294157339 when v = 0.9c
>>
>> EO:
>> Coordinates in K': x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
>> Coordinates in K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
>>
>> E1: (this event could be skipped)
>> Coordinates in K': x₁' = L, t₁' = L/c
>> Coordinates in K:
>> x₁ = γ(x₁'+ v⋅t₁')=γ(L+ v⋅L/c) = L⋅√((c+v)/(c-v))
>> t₁ = γ(t₁'+ (v/c²)⋅x₁') = γ(L/c + (v/c²)⋅L) = (L/c)⋅√((c+v)/(c-v))
>>
>> E2:
>> Coordinates in K': x₂' = 0, t₂' = 2L/c
>> Coordinates in K:
>> x₂ = γ(x₂'+ v⋅t₁') = γ(0 + v⋅2L/c) = (2Lv/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>> t₂ = γ(t₂'+ (v/c²)⋅x₂') = γ(L/c + (v/c²)⋅L) = (2L/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>>
>> So while the moving clock tA has advanced the proper time
>> t₂' = 2L/c = 1 μs ,
>> the coordinate time in the stationary frame has advanced
>> t₂ (2L/c)/√(1 −v²/c²) = 2.294157339 μs
>>
>> t₂'/t₂ = √(1 −v²/c²) = 0.435889894
>>
>> "Moving clocks run slow"

>>>
>>> LENGTH CONTRACTION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run faster)
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c1
>>>
>>> x' = γ (x - vt)
>>>
>>> Δx' = AB AND Δx = AB/γ = 0.435889894 AB, as measured in the frame at rest. As both measurements are made simultaneously in the frame at rest, there is A PERCEIVED LENGTH CONTRACTION of AB in the moving frame.
>>> But the speed of light IS INVARIANT wrt to any frame, so IT'S PERCEIVED that clock tA IS RUNNING FASTER.
>>>
>>> The roundtrip of the photon is PERCEIVED to travel 2 x 0.435889894 AB = 0.871779789 x AB, which means that the clock's tick in the moving frame IS PERCEIVED TO TICK every 0.871779789 μs, instead of 1.00000000 μs.
>>>
>>> TIME DILATION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run slower)
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c2
>>>
>>> t' = γ (t - vx/c)
>>>
>>> Δt' = Δt/γ = 0.435889894 Δt (Time is PERCEIVED as running slower in the moving frame).
>>>
>>> For every 1.00000000 μs in the frame at rest, it's PERCEIVED that only 0.435889894 μs passed in the moving frame.
>>>
>>> The time measurements are made in the same location, so it doesn't affect the results.
>>>
>>> CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict. Clock tA is PERCEIVED to run faster or slower than clock tK, in the two different transforms.
>>>
>>>
>>> QUESTION: WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?
>> There is no paradox.
>>
>> The trick is to know how to use the Lorentz transform.
>>
>> You don't.
>>
>> It's mathematics which you always screw up.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
>

> "Length contraction is the PHENOMENON that a moving object's length is MEASURED TO BE SHORTER than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame.[1] It is also known as Lorentz contraction or Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction (after Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald) and is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light."

Yes. Let's have a look at the Lorentz contraction.

To measure the distance between the moving A and B in K means
to measure the distance between the position of A in K at some
time t, and the position of B _at the same time_ t.

Of course we know the result will be L/γ, but let us
do it properly:

In K', A is at x' = 0, and B is at x' = L. Always.
In K, A is at x = 0 at t=0.

So let as find the position of B in K at t=0.
Use the LT:
t = γ(t'+ (v/c²)x') = γ(t'+ Lv/c²) = 0 => t' = -Lv/c²
x = γ(x'+ vt') = γ(L- vLv/c²) = γL(1-v²/c²) = L⋅√(1 −v²/c²)

So the _measured_ distance between A and B in K is:
L⋅√(1 −v²/c²) as expected.

But the important point to notice is that in K',
the position of A was measured at t' = 0, but B was measured
at t' = -Lv/c², that is earlier, when the B had not moved
as far as A. That's why it is measured to be shorter!
Relativity of simultaneity!

The point is that relativity of simultaneity and Lorentz contraction
are two sides of the same coin!

>
> NOTES: 1) Phenomenon? ; 2) Measured = CALCULATED using the first Lorentz formula.
>
> Paul, you should stop scrambling concepts and using Lorentz mathemagics, and stick to what I posted, without changes.
>
> This is very simple, and is clearly explained in the Wiki article:
>
> L = L₀/γ(v)
>
> where
>
> L is the length OBSERVED by an observer in motion relative to the object.
> L₀ is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame).
> γ(v) is the Lorentz factor, defined as γ(v) = 1/√(1 - v²/c²).
>
> In my own terms,
> Δx(v) = AB/γ(v) ; roundtrip time "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K: Δt' = 2AB/(c.γ)

What is "round triptime "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K:"
supposed to mean? It is meaningless babble.

You can't "perceive" what is measured it K' from K.

The round trip time _measured_ in K' is 2L₀/c.
The round trip time _measured_ in K is (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

I showed this above, but you have probably not read it.
So let me remind you:

It's very simple, and should be impossible to screw up:
=======================================================
When the light pulse has moved from A to B and back to A,
the coordinates of A in K' are x' = 0, t' = 2L₀/c
We must use the Lorentz transform to find the coordinates in K:

t = γ(t'+ (v/c²)x') = γ(L₀/c + (v/c²)⋅L₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

It is impossible to make the Lorentz transform give any other result.

You have not used the Lorentz transform at all!

The following is nonsense.

> Δx(0) = AB ; Δt' = 1.000000 μs
> Δx(0.9c) = 0.43589 AB ; Δt' = 0.87178 μs , because c is invariant.
> Δx(0.999c) = 0.04471 AB ; Δt' = 0.089420 μs , because c is invariant.
> Δx(0.999999c) = 0.001414 AB ; Δt' = 0.002828 μs , because c is invariant.
> Δx(0.999999999c) = 0.000045 AB ; Δt' = 0.000089 μs , because c is invariant.
>
> Use two arrays AB, with a digital counter tA located at the A side of the assembly AB. Put one of them at the origin
> of the K frame, with A located in the origin and put the other on the moving K' frame, with A at its origin.
>
> These twin systems are COUNTING 1.000000 μs ticks of the horizontal light clock AB.
>
> The observer at the origin of K frame monitor the counts of the two counters (moving and being at rest). He CAN CERTIFY that
> the local and remote digital displays show THE SAME ACCOUNT OF 1.000000 μs ticks.
>
> Yet, for his dismay and confusion, when use the Lorentz formula, it DECEIVES HIM telling that 1.000000 μs tick in his local clock/counter
> is happening at an increasingly lower value in the remote system (mathemagics), BUT it's in conflict with the value of the remote digital
> display, which IS EQUAL TO HIS LOCAL DISPLAY.
>
> Here, 60 years after the 1905 paper, digital electronics DESTROY THE ANALOG LORENTZ FORMULA, proving that it's a FICTION, a fairy tale.
>
> Now, what could happen in the head of the poor observer? He might arrive to the conclusion that SR is a flawed pseudo-science, and that all
> that he believed since his conversion to relativity IS A LIE.
>
> Blame the second postulate and the horizontal light clock, if you want.
>

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:43:55 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.11.2023 23:49, skrev Richard Hertz:

<snip Paul's crap>

> > In my own terms,
> > Δx(v) = AB/γ(v) ; roundtrip time "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K: Δt' = 2AB/(c.γ)

> What is "round triptime "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K:"
> supposed to mean? It is meaningless babble.
>
> You can't "perceive" what is measured it K' from K.
>
> The round trip time _measured_ in K' is 2L₀/c.
> The round trip time _measured_ in K is (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

You're full of historical shit.

Let me RECAP: You CAN'T measure the round trip time of a K' event being in the frame K, at relative rest!. In particular, being that K' is moving at almost c.

If you want to know the K' round trip time from K, read THE FUCKING DIGITAL DISPLAY IN K'!!

And that is the ONLY TRUTH in your pseudo-scientific relativism.

Because mathematics (Lorentz) IS NOT PHYSICS. But you'll never learn, fanatic indoctrinated relativist!

Your early marriage with the Lorentz crap and Einstein pseudo-philosophy ruined your brain since decades ago. Now it's USELESS.

>
> I showed this above, but you have probably not read it.
> So let me remind you:
>
> It's very simple, and should be impossible to screw up:
> =======================================================
> When the light pulse has moved from A to B and back to A,
> the coordinates of A in K' are x' = 0, t' = 2L₀/c
> We must use the Lorentz transform to find the coordinates in K:
>
> t = γ(t'+ (v/c²)x') = γ(L₀/c + (v/c²)⋅L₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>
> It is impossible to make the Lorentz transform give any other result.
>
> You have not used the Lorentz transform at all!

YOU KEEP USING MATHEMAGICS, BELIEVING THAT IT EXPLAIN THE REAL WORLD OF PHYSICAL EVENTS. But you lost your mind
in your journey toward full relativistic indoctrination. Again, mathematics IS NOT PHYSICS.

You SHOULD/MUST read Newton's biography and learn what is producing BY REASONING, not by borrowed doctrines of a
pseudo-science that ruined your brain.

Newton, with Halley's help, created the modern world of physics and calculus, providing TRUE MATHEMATICAL TOOLS to describe
events in nature, long time observed and documented by Kepler, Galileo and many others.

Einstein perverted Newton mechanics by the way of fallacies and deceptions, wrapped in circular paradoxes, that only found
applications in some aspects of the non-observable world of the quantum and some aspects of the NON-MENSURABLE events
in marginal topics of celestial mechanics, which are ONLY CALCULABLE, not observable.

And I prefer not to expand this shitty GR theory to cosmology, where fail CATASTROPHICALLY (since day 1).

<snip>

Den 11.11.2023 04:26, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:43:55 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 09.11.2023 23:49, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> In my own terms,
>>> Δx(v) = AB/γ(v) ; roundtrip time "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K: Δt' = 2AB/(c.γ)

>> What is "round triptime "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K:"
>> supposed to mean? It is meaningless babble.
>>
>> You can't "perceive" what is measured it K' from K.
>>
>> The round trip time _measured_ in K' is 2L₀/c.
>> The round trip time _measured_ in K is (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

> You're full of historical shit.

Let me remind you of the subject line:
"Conflicts in SR when using horizontal light clocks in the moving frame."

Your opinion of SR is irrelevant.
The question is: Have you succeeded in proving SR inconsistent?

To prove SR inconsistent, that is self contradictory,
you must show that the math of SR can give contradictory
predictions for the same scenario.
"The math of SR" is in this case the Lorentz transform.

You claim to have proven that SR is inconsistent, but you
haven't used the Lorentz transform to show it.

Your attempt to use "the math SR" is only naive nonsense.

>
> Let me RECAP: You CAN'T measure the round trip time of a K' event being in the frame K, at relative rest!. In particular, being that K' is moving at almost c.

The Lorentz transform predicts what would be _measured_.
Not "PERCEIVED", whatever that might mean,

There is only one way to measure the round trip time of
a moving light clock.

That is to:
1. Compare it with a coordinate clock in K at the instant
the photon leave A, and:
2. Compare it with a coordinate clock in K at the instant
the photon is back at A after being reflected from B.

Let me RECAP:
1. Photon leave A, Coordinates of A:
In K': x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
In K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
2: Photon back at A, Coordinates of A:
In K': x₁' = 0, t₁' = 2L₀/c
In K:
x₁ = γ(x₁'+ v⋅t₁') = γ(0 + v⋅2L₀/c) = (2L₀v/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
t₁ = γ(t₁'+ (v/c²)⋅x₁') = γ(L₀/c + (v/c²)⋅L₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

This means:
Clock tA has advanced the proper time (t₁'-t₀') = 2L₀/c
while the coordinate time of K has advanced
(t₁-t₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

In K the moving clock is measured to run slow by √(1 −v²/c²).

-----

Since you are so interested in the Lorentz contraction, we could ask:
Where in K is B at the time t₁ = γ2L₀/c ?
Coordinates of B:
In K': x₂' = L₀, t₂' = ?
In K:
t₁ = γ(t₂'+ (v/c²)⋅x₂') = γ2L₀/c => t₂' = 2L₀/c - vL₀/c²
x₂ = γ(x₂'+ v⋅t₂') = γ(L₀ + v⋅(2L₀/c -vL₀/c²)) = γ⋅L₀(1+2v/c-v²/c²)

The distance between A and B measured in K is:
x₂-x₁ = γ⋅L₀(1+2v/c-v²/c²)- γ⋅2L₀v/c = γ⋅L₀(1-v²/c²) = L₀⋅√(1−v²/c²)

In K, the proper distance between the mirrors L₀ is Lorentz contracted
(measured to be) L₀⋅√(1−v²/c²)

------

The above is what SR predicts, and if you want to prove SR inconsistent
you have to show that the Lorentz transform can produce alternative
results to the above!

>
> If you want to know the K' round trip time from K, read THE FUCKING DIGITAL DISPLAY IN K'!!
So when you proved SR inconsistent you to read
THE FUCKING DIGITAL DISPLAY IN K' which showed that
the round trip time in K' was 1μs, and then you PERCEIVED
what it would be in K? :-D

>
> And that is the ONLY TRUTH in your pseudo-scientific relativism.
>
> Because mathematics (Lorentz) IS NOT PHYSICS. But you'll never learn, fanatic indoctrinated relativist!
>
> Your early marriage with the Lorentz crap and Einstein pseudo-philosophy ruined your brain since decades ago. Now it's USELESS.

So now, when you have realized that you are unable to prove
the Lorentz transform inconsistent, you overturn the table
so the pieces are spread on the floor, shouting:

"I don't want to play the game 'proving SR inconsistent' anymore,
because mathematics (Lorentz) IS NOT PHYSICS. SO THERE"

I accept your surrender.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:26:45 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:43:55 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > The round trip time _measured_ in K' is 2L₀/c.
> > The round trip time _measured_ in K is (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
> You're full of historical shit.

Your OP is: What does SR predict for your setup, Agreed?
For the purpose of this thread, SR is x'=(x-vt)γ and t'=(t-xv/c²)γ.
By using the above LT, Paul and I here have shown you in a few lines of algebra, what
SR predicts for the values on the clocks & rulers for your setup (events).

Nowhere have you shown an error, nowhere have you provided a rebuttal to the steps
we provided you. Your response to our 5 lines of algebra is " You're full of historical shit".
What a convincing counterargument!

Put 2 apples on the table. Then put 3 more. Count them all now. The answer you get is 5.
According to you that must be wrong because"2+3=5" has already been demonstrated in
the past; it is " historical shit". This is exactly the "argument" you provided us.

> Let me RECAP: You CAN'T measure the round trip time of a K' event being in the frame K,
> at relative rest!. In particular, being that K' is moving at almost c.

Yes it can be done. Scientists do it all the time. But that is irrelevant to the OP since your query
is about the predictions of SR to your setup.

To measure the time of occurrence of an event, a given observer uses his clock that is located at the event.
The predictions of SR are (with v=0.9c):

As the photon returns to clock A, this clock A displays 1 (μs), agreed?
(i.e.: t₁' = 1, or as Paul has symbolized it, t₁' = 2L₀/c)

As the photon returns to clock A, the clock belonging to frame K which is located at the event,
("under", coinciding with clock A) has the value 2.29...(μs), agreed?
(i.e.: t₁ = 2.29 (μs), or as Paul put it, t₁ = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)).

These are SR's predictions. Can you point out where is our/SR's algebraic mistake?
Note that 1 < 2.29; the value on the moving clock A is less that the fixed clock in K.
This is what is called "time dilation" or "moving clocks run slow".
Best just to say 1 < 2.29. Less confusing that way, no?

> If you want to know the K' round trip time from K, read THE FUCKING DIGITAL DISPLAY IN K'!!

You do not seem to know the meaning of the word 'time', nor of the meaning of
the symbols used in SR, namely "t" etc.

A clock displays a value as it displays the value.
For instance, when it displays "1" it there and then displays 1. Simple concept.
This is what is meant to measure (observe) time on a given clock (or frame).

The parameter "t" in SR represents the value displayed by a given clock.
So, to predict the value displayed by clock A, SR says its 1 (μs). [why?]
So, to predict the value displayed by K clock located there, SR says its 2.29 (μs).

> And that is the ONLY TRUTH in your pseudo-scientific relativism.
> Because mathematics (Lorentz) IS NOT PHYSICS. But you'll never learn, fanatic indoctrinated relativist!

You wanted to know what SR predicted for your setup. We have shown you.
You are now changing/requesting a different topic? That is, what actual exps give?
Well, the results of exps concur with SR's predictions.

> in your journey toward full relativistic indoctrination. Again, mathematics IS NOT PHYSICS.

Perhaps, but that is a different topic from your OP. Stay on topic.

rotchm wrote:

> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:26:45 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:43:55 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
>> wrote:
>> > The round trip time _measured_ in K' is 2L₀/c.
>> > The round trip time _measured_ in K is (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>> You're full of historical shit.
>
> Your OP is: What does SR predict for your setup, Agreed?
> For the purpose of this thread, SR is x'=(x-vt)γ and t'=(t-xv/c²)γ. By
> using the above LT, Paul and I here have shown you in a few lines of

shut the fuck up, fool. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 compared to Paul. In everything.
You stinking lying shit. Stephane.

𝗨𝗦_𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁_𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱_𝘁𝗼_‘𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲’
Moody’s cites deficits and political polarization as a key reason for the
move
https://r%74.com/business/587055-moodys-downgrade-us-rating-debt/

"Continued political polarization within US Congress raises the risk that
successive governments will not be able to reach consensus on a fiscal
plan"

Listen to this 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_######_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆. Once you understand the game, it
gets so easy to read these people.

What a ridiculous n 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰_𝗻_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰_𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲. It is gonna implode hopefully
soon ..! Amen ..!

US runs out of MONEY NOVEMBER 17, 2023 ! NEED TO PRINT
𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥_𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡_𝗢𝗥_𝗧𝗪𝗢 !

Even the "credit rating" companies are in US pocket. The true rating
𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗯𝗲_𝗗_𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝗻_𝗱𝗲𝗯𝘁_𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁_𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲. But since US is able to influence
these companies since most of them live within the US, 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 "𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴
𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰," if they told 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵. If credit companies were honest you'd see
people with wheelbarrows filled with 1K bills 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗨𝗦 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗴𝗼 𝘂𝗽
300% 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 9:48:27 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.11.2023 04:26, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:43:55 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 09.11.2023 23:49, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>> In my own terms,
> >>> Δx(v) = AB/γ(v) ; roundtrip time "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K: Δt' = 2AB/(c.γ)
>
> >> What is "round triptime "OBSERVED/PERCEIVED" in K' from K:"
> >> supposed to mean? It is meaningless babble.
> >>
> >> You can't "perceive" what is measured it K' from K.
> >>
> >> The round trip time _measured_ in K' is 2L₀/c.
> >> The round trip time _measured_ in K is (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>
> > You're full of historical shit.
> Let me remind you of the subject line:
> "Conflicts in SR when using horizontal light clocks in the moving frame."
>
> Your opinion of SR is irrelevant.
> The question is: Have you succeeded in proving SR inconsistent?
>
> To prove SR inconsistent, that is self contradictory,
> you must show that the math of SR can give contradictory
> predictions for the same scenario.
> "The math of SR" is in this case the Lorentz transform.
>
> You claim to have proven that SR is inconsistent, but you
> haven't used the Lorentz transform to show it.
>
> Your attempt to use "the math SR" is only naive nonsense.
> >
> > Let me RECAP: You CAN'T measure the round trip time of a K' event being in the frame K, at relative rest!. In particular, being that K' is moving at almost c.
> The Lorentz transform predicts what would be _measured_.
> Not "PERCEIVED", whatever that might mean,
>
> There is only one way to measure the round trip time of
> a moving light clock.
>
> That is to:
> 1. Compare it with a coordinate clock in K at the instant
> the photon leave A, and:
> 2. Compare it with a coordinate clock in K at the instant
> the photon is back at A after being reflected from B.
>
> Let me RECAP:
> 1. Photon leave A, Coordinates of A:
> In K': x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
> In K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
> 2: Photon back at A, Coordinates of A:
> In K': x₁' = 0, t₁' = 2L₀/c
> In K:
> x₁ = γ(x₁'+ v⋅t₁') = γ(0 + v⋅2L₀/c) = (2L₀v/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
> t₁ = γ(t₁'+ (v/c²)⋅x₁') = γ(L₀/c + (v/c²)⋅L₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>
> This means:
> Clock tA has advanced the proper time (t₁'-t₀') = 2L₀/c
> while the coordinate time of K has advanced
> (t₁-t₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>
> In K the moving clock is measured to run slow by √(1 −v²/c²).
>
> -----
>
> Since you are so interested in the Lorentz contraction, we could ask:
> Where in K is B at the time t₁ = γ2L₀/c ?
> Coordinates of B:
> In K': x₂' = L₀, t₂' = ?
> In K:
> t₁ = γ(t₂'+ (v/c²)⋅x₂') = γ2L₀/c => t₂' = 2L₀/c - vL₀/c²
> x₂ = γ(x₂'+ v⋅t₂') = γ(L₀ + v⋅(2L₀/c -vL₀/c²)) = γ⋅L₀(1+2v/c-v²/c²)
>
> The distance between A and B measured in K is:
> x₂-x₁ = γ⋅L₀(1+2v/c-v²/c²)- γ⋅2L₀v/c = γ⋅L₀(1-v²/c²) = L₀⋅√(1−v²/c²)
>
> In K, the proper distance between the mirrors L₀ is Lorentz contracted
> (measured to be) L₀⋅√(1−v²/c²)
>
> ------
>
> The above is what SR predicts, and if you want to prove SR inconsistent
> you have to show that the Lorentz transform can produce alternative
> results to the above!
> >
> > If you want to know the K' round trip time from K, read THE FUCKING DIGITAL DISPLAY IN K'!!
> So when you proved SR inconsistent you to read
> THE FUCKING DIGITAL DISPLAY IN K' which showed that
> the round trip time in K' was 1μs, and then you PERCEIVED
> what it would be in K? :-D
> >
> > And that is the ONLY TRUTH in your pseudo-scientific relativism.
> >
> > Because mathematics (Lorentz) IS NOT PHYSICS. But you'll never learn, fanatic indoctrinated relativist!
> >
> > Your early marriage with the Lorentz crap and Einstein pseudo-philosophy ruined your brain since decades ago. Now it's USELESS.
> So now, when you have realized that you are unable to prove
> the Lorentz transform inconsistent, you overturn the table
> so the pieces are spread on the floor, shouting:
>
> "I don't want to play the game 'proving SR inconsistent' anymore,
> because mathematics (Lorentz) IS NOT PHYSICS. SO THERE"
>
> I accept your surrender.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Stating it as simply as I can:

1) Put a DIGITAL DISPLAY pointing to K origin, so it displays the time of the moving light clock tA.

2) Now, while CALCULATING the time elapsed in the moving frame, being at the K origin, READ AND COMPARE the remote digital display.

Two completely different values:

- THE REAL ONE: What is observed in the digital display.

- THE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC calculation: What the observer at rest in K origin get, when applying Lorentz.

REALITY VS. MYSTICISM.

Now tell me, Paul, what the FUCK is the value of the Lorentz's results in the real world? Do you dispute the reading of the digital display?

Of course, you do. Your credence is in danger and you have to write a tirade of shitty, retorted reasons to defend your posture.

But electronics KILLS relativity. Try something for your unpleasant butthurt.

El sábado, 11 de noviembre de 2023 a las 13:30:07 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:

> Stating it as simply as I can:
>
> 1) Put a DIGITAL DISPLAY pointing to K origin, so it displays the time of the moving light clock tA.
>

What nonsense is that: "a DIGITAL DISPLAY pointing to K origin.....
and then, "so it displays the time of the moving light clock tA"?

> 2) Now, while CALCULATING the time elapsed in the moving frame, being at the K origin, READ AND COMPARE the remote digital display.

Who is calculating and how that person "READ AND COMPARE the remote digital display"?

> Two completely different values:
>
> - THE REAL ONE: What is observed in the digital display.

Observed where?

You really are not good at this stuff. Find another hobby!!!

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> c = 299792458 m/s = 299.792458 m/μs
>
> Two perfect mirrors (A,B) are placed 149,896229 m apart, being A at the origin of the relatively moving frame K'.
>
> A photon, in the visible light range, is emitted from the mirror A (which also contains a clock) exactly towards mirror B.
>
> The photon bounces back at mirror B, towards mirror A. Its arrival from the roundtrip is marked in tA clock as being exactly 1.0000000 μs.
>
> This process continues forever, without any losses, while A clock is accumulating 1.0000000 μs counts.
>
> The arrangement in K' moves at v speed wrt the origin at K, where a clock tK is located (it also ticks at 1.0000000 μs.
>
> Both clocks (tK and tA) are reset to zero exactly when A pass by the origin K, and it forces the emission of the photon.
>
> Then, tK and tA are synchronized in the einstenian way.
>
> The speed v = 0.9 c = 269813212 m/s
>
> WHAT SR (LORENTZ) SAYS THAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS.
> γ = 2.294157339
>
> LENGTH CONTRACTION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run faster)
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c1
>
> x' = γ (x - vt)
>
> Δx' = AB AND Δx = AB/γ = 0.435889894 AB, as measured in the frame at rest. As both measurements are made simultaneously in the frame at rest, there is A PERCEIVED LENGTH CONTRACTION of AB in the moving frame.
> But the speed of light IS INVARIANT wrt to any frame, so IT'S PERCEIVED that clock tA IS RUNNING FASTER.
>
> The roundtrip of the photon is PERCEIVED to travel 2 x 0.435889894 AB = 0.871779789 x AB, which means that the clock's tick in the moving frame IS PERCEIVED TO TICK every 0.871779789 μs, instead of 1.00000000 μs..
>
> TIME DILATION (Horizontal light clock is perceived to run slower)
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c2
>
> t' = γ (t - vx/c)
>
> Δt' = Δt/γ = 0.435889894 Δt (Time is PERCEIVED as running slower in the moving frame).
>
> For every 1.00000000 μs in the frame at rest, it's PERCEIVED that only 0.435889894 μs passed in the moving frame.
>
> The time measurements are made in the same location, so it doesn't affect the results.
>
> CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict. Clock tA is PERCEIVED to run faster or slower than clock tK, in the two different transforms..
>
>
> QUESTION: WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?
The trick is that both length contraction and time dilation are merely alterations of the units of measure. Such an alteration would result in two different speeds of light in the two frames.

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 11:30:07 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 9:48:27 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > Let me RECAP:
> > 1. Photon leave A, Coordinates of A:
> > In K': x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
> > In K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0

No comment?
You agree with what he said there?

> > 2: Photon back at A, Coordinates of A:
> > In K': x₁' = 0, t₁' = 2L₀/c

No comment?
No rebuttal?

> > In K:
> > x₁ = γ(x₁'+ v⋅t₁') = γ(0 + v⋅2L₀/c) = (2L₀v/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
> > t₁ = γ(t₁'+ (v/c²)⋅x₁') = γ(L₀/c + (v/c²)⋅L₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

No comment?
Usw...

> 1) Put a DIGITAL DISPLAY pointing to K origin, so it displays the time of the moving light clock tA.

Clock tA will always display its own value...thats what a clock does.
You request now that it sends out an "image" of this value (these values).
Thus, clock A will sequentially display 0,1,2, .... and the images of these will propagate
through space for K (x=0) to receive. This is what you are saying, right?

> 2) Now, while CALCULATING the time elapsed in the moving frame,

No. forget about the word 'elapsed' since its ambiguous and not even needed..
Lets just use the word *value*.
Clock A sequentially logs/displays the values 0,1,2,3...(or any value for that matter).
Here, the difference between two successive values are (N+1) - N = 1. Agreed?
Anything to comment on here?

> being at the K origin, READ AND COMPARE the remote digital display.

We went through this already, step by step, and you simply ignored all those steps and changed topic. Why?
Here I go again, with your new scenario, using normalized units:
Clock A (of frame K') travels at speed |v| = 0.5c = 1/2 to the right along K, the usual scenario.

Clock A eventually indicates the value 1, say (or use t' to remain symbolic).
That is, this event x'=0 & t' = 1 is labeled as E1 = (0, 1)'.
Agree with this? yes/no/why?

What does SR conclude concerning frame K:
The LT's are x' = (x-vt)γ & t' = (t-xv)γ.

A little algebra gives E1 = (√3/3, 2√3/3) ~ (0.577, 1.15), as observed/measured in K.
IOW, The event E1 at the ruler mark x = 0.577 and the clock there (of K) indicates 1.15.
This is where the image of "1" is generated.
Agree with this? yes/no/why?

Now you seem to ask a different question, namely what does the origin of K [labeling it o_K] see ?
That is, if this image of "1" of clock A is sent to o_K, what is the value of o_K upon reception of "1" ?
Well, the "1" is sent out from position x = √3/3 at time t = 2√3/3.
This image (photon, say) travels at the SoL, thus takes a time interval of 𝛥 = √3/3 [recalling that c=1] to reach
o_K. It is now therefore time "t + 𝛥t" = 2√3/3 + √3/3 = √3.
That is, in K, the event o_K receiving the image "1" is (0, √3 ≈ 1.73).
Agree with this? yes/no/why?

Summarizing: In K, the image of "1" of clock A is generated at x mark of 0..577, where the clock there indicates 1.15, and
this image attains o_K as the clock there indicates 1.73.

Agree with this? yes/no/why?

The above is the math, the predictions of SR.
This is what you requested?

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 00:46:34 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> You request now that it sends out an "image" of this value (these values).
> Thus, clock A will sequentially display 0,1,2, ....

Have you ever seen a cklock, poor halfbrain?
No, they don't display what you're gedankening.

Den 11.11.2023 17:30, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 9:48:27 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> There is only one way to measure the round trip time of
>> a moving light clock.
>>
>> That is to:
>> 1. Compare it with a coordinate clock in K at the instant
>> the photon leave A, and:
>> 2. Compare it with a coordinate clock in K at the instant
>> the photon is back at A after being reflected from B.
>>
>> Let me RECAP:
>> 1. Photon leave A, Coordinates of A:
>> In K': x₀' = 0, t₀' = 0
>> In K: x₀ = 0, t₀ = 0
>> 2: Photon back at A, Coordinates of A:
>> In K': x₁' = 0, t₁' = 2L₀/c
>> In K:
>> x₁ = γ(x₁'+ v⋅t₁') = γ(0 + v⋅2L₀/c) = (2L₀v/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>> t₁ = γ(t₁'+ (v/c²)⋅x₁') = γ(L₀/c + (v/c²)⋅L₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>>
>> This means:
>> Clock tA has advanced the proper time (t₁'-t₀') = 2L₀/c
>> while the coordinate time of K has advanced
>> (t₁-t₀) = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)
>>
>> In K the moving clock is measured to run slow by √(1 −v²/c²).
>>
>> -----
>
>
> Stating it as simply as I can:

Yes, let's state the light clock thought experiment as simply as we can.

The light clock is a theoretical clock in a thought experiment.
A photon (or short light pulse) is bouncing force and back between
two mirrors A and B. The distance between the mirrors is L.

According to the second postulate of SR the round trip time of
the photon measured in the light clock's rest frame K' will be
t₁' = 2L₀/c

A variant of the thought experiment is to let the light clock
be oriented horizontally.
And as shown above, SR predicts that the round trip time of
the photon measured in the stationary frame K will be:
t₁ = (2L₀/c)/√(1 −v²/c²)

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE SR PREDICT ANYTHING ELSE.

So back to the issue of the thread shown in the subject line:
According to Richard Hertz there are "Conflicts in SR when
using horizontal light clocks in the moving frame."

Richard Hertz claims that SR can predict two different values
for the round trip time in the "stationary frame".

Let's see how he did it:

Richards starts with the equation x' = γ(x - vt) and claims that
LENGTH CONTRACTION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time
measured (He uses "perceived") in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)/γ,
which means that the light clock is perceived to run fast, not slow.

He hasn't calculated the length contraction, though. You can't do that
from the equation x' = γ(x - vt) alone. But he knows that according
to SR, the Lorentz contraction is L'= L₀/γ.

He has made the very naive calculation that since the length is
contracted by 1/γ in K, then the round trip time in K must be (2L₀/γ)/c.
This is horribly wrong, because the mirrors are moving in K.
(And this is the only calculation he has made!)

Here is the correct calculation of the round trip time based
on the correct Lorentz contraction L' = L₀/γ:

In the following is tf the transit time from A to B,
and tb is the transit time from B to A.

|<--------------c⋅tf---------------->|
|<----------L'------------->|<-v⋅tf->|

c⋅tf = L' + v⋅tf => tf = L'/(c-v)

|<-----------L'------------>|
|<--------c⋅tb----->|<-v⋅tb->|

L' = c⋅tb + v⋅tb => tb = L'/(c+v)

t₁ = tf + tb = 2L'⋅c/(c² + v²) = (2L'/c)⋅γ² = (2L₀/c)⋅γ

Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.

-------------------

Then he starts with the equation t' = γ (t - vx/c)
and claim that TIME DILATION leads to the conclusion that the round trip
time measured in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)⋅γ.

Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.

Again, he hasn't calculated the time dilation from the equation
t' = γ (t - vx/c), but he knows that the time dilation according
to SR is Δt' = Δt/γ. And since this IS time dilation, he gets it right.

--------------

So you see, Richard, when the only calculation you made is corrected,
you have not proved that SR is inconsistent, but have given two
calculations which confirm SR.

So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?

The following appears very confused.
Are you really serious, or are you joking.

>
> 1) Put a DIGITAL DISPLAY pointing to K origin, so it displays the time of the moving light clock tA.
>
> 2) Now, while CALCULATING the time elapsed in the moving frame, being at the K origin, READ AND COMPARE the remote digital display.
>
> Two completely different values:
>
> - THE REAL ONE: What is observed in the digital display.

There is no such thing as a _real_ light clock. Of obvious reasons!
And you will put a digital display on it to see what it _really_ shows!

I hope for your sake that you are joking.
(But I don't believe so!)
>

> - THE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC calculation: What the observer at rest in K origin get, when applying Lorentz.
>
> REALITY VS. MYSTICISM.
>
> Now tell me, Paul, what the FUCK is the value of the Lorentz's results in the real world? Do you dispute the reading of the digital display?
>
> Of course, you do. Your credence is in danger and you have to write a tirade of shitty, retorted reasons to defend your posture.
>
> But electronics KILLS relativity. Try something for your unpleasant butthurt.
>

Electronics KILLS thought experiments!

One of your better! :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 15:13:30 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?

Oh, of course you can, nothing else is expected from
a fanatic worshipper idiot. But the proof that it isn't
was presented on this NG many times.

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 11.11.2023 17:30, skrev Richard Hertz:

<snip>

> So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?

NO, doctrine-blinded and religion-clothed-brain-arteries, NO!

SR is a deceptive pseudo-science, which FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE OR ELSE.

The time registered in the moving frame by anything (human, ghost or instruments) IS IMMUNE to your stupid Lorentz equations. Time flows normally there.

Throw away the light clock and use a hydrogen maser atomic clock instead. Don't use the fucking giant digital display.
Use a 1-way microwave link to transmit to the origin the DIGITAL READOUT of the moving clock, up to picoseconds resolution.

At origin of K compare the output of the encoded data with the LOCAL CLOCK tK: THEY ARE THE SAME!

It's the STUPID LORENTZ EQUATION THAT FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCED TO BELIEVE!

That's the tragedy of this shitty pseudo-science: Took a mind like yours, that COULD HAVE BEEN useful before SR absorption of your reasoning,
and converted it in something small, with fewer capabilities than the brain OF A FUCKING PARROT!

I feel sorry for your wasted life. Now it's too late for you. Deal with it.

>
> The following appears very confused.
> Are you really serious, or are you joking.
> >
> > 1) Put a DIGITAL DISPLAY pointing to K origin, so it displays the time of the moving light clock tA.
> >
> > 2) Now, while CALCULATING the time elapsed in the moving frame, being at the K origin, READ AND COMPARE the remote digital display.
> >
> > Two completely different values:
> >
> > - THE REAL ONE: What is observed in the digital display.
> There is no such thing as a _real_ light clock. Of obvious reasons!
> And you will put a digital display on it to see what it _really_ shows!
>
> I hope for your sake that you are joking.
> (But I don't believe so!)
> >
>
> > - THE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC calculation: What the observer at rest in K origin get, when applying Lorentz.
> >
> > REALITY VS. MYSTICISM.
> >
> > Now tell me, Paul, what the FUCK is the value of the Lorentz's results in the real world? Do you dispute the reading of the digital display?
> >
> > Of course, you do. Your credence is in danger and you have to write a tirade of shitty, retorted reasons to defend your posture.
> >
> > But electronics KILLS relativity. Try something for your unpleasant butthurt.
> >
> Electronics KILLS thought experiments!
>
> One of your better! :-D
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:12:21 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?
> NO, doctrine-blinded and religion-clothed-brain-arteries, NO!

Then show us what step, what calculation was wrong.
He (and I) showed you in very simple algebra steps what SR predicts.
And all you can say is "NO, doctrine-blinded and religion-clothed-brain-arteries, NO! " ?
You cant point out what step was wrong... you only rant.

> SR is a deceptive pseudo-science, which FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE OR ELSE.

More rants. No counterarguments.

> The time registered in the moving frame by anything (human, ghost or instruments)
> IS IMMUNE to your stupid Lorentz equations. Time flows normally there.

So? Again, point out which calculation was wrong.

> Throw away the light clock and use a hydrogen maser atomic clock instead.

But YOU invoked the light clock. See your OP and title!!

> Don't use the fucking giant digital display.

But YOU invoked it !!

> Use a 1-way microwave link to transmit to the origin the DIGITAL READOUT of the moving clock,
> up to picoseconds resolution.

Such exps are routinely done. The conclusions (values obtained) are the same as SR's predictions.
Are you now a reality denier?

> At origin of K compare the output of the encoded data with the LOCAL CLOCK tK: THEY ARE THE SAME!

No they are not. Such exps are routinely done and the results are that tk & image are different.

> It's the STUPID LORENTZ EQUATION THAT FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT,

No. SR makes the predictions. The actual exps "force" us to believe.
<rest of rants and empirics denying snipped>

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 01:07:44 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:12:21 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> > > So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?
> > NO, doctrine-blinded and religion-clothed-brain-arteries, NO!
> Then show us what step, what calculation was wrong.
> He (and I) showed you in very simple algebra steps what SR predicts.

What your Shit predicted was inconsistent, could be anything.

> No. SR makes the predictions. The actual exps "force" us to believe.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane bunch "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

Den 12.11.2023 23:12, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 11.11.2023 17:30, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 9:48:27 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> So back to the issue of the thread shown in the subject line:
>> According to Richard Hertz there are "Conflicts in SR when
>> using horizontal light clocks in the moving frame."
>>
>> Richard Hertz claims that SR can predict two different values
>> for the round trip time in the "stationary frame".
>>
>> Let's see how he did it:
>>
>> Richards starts with the equation x' = γ(x - vt) and claims that
>> LENGTH CONTRACTION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time measured (He uses "perceived") in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)/γ,
>> which means that the light clock is perceived to run fast, not slow.
>>
>> He hasn't calculated the length contraction, though. You can't do that
>> from the equation x' = γ(x - vt) alone. But he knows that according
>> to SR, the Lorentz contraction is L'= L₀/γ.
>>
>> He has made the very naive calculation that since the length is contracted by 1/γ in K, then the round trip time in K must be (2L₀/γ)/c.
>> This is horribly wrong, because the mirrors are moving in K.
>> (And this is the only calculation he has made!)
>>
>> Here is the correct calculation of the round trip time based
>> on the correct Lorentz contraction L' = L₀/γ:
>>
>> In the following is tf the transit time from A to B,
>> and tb is the transit time from B to A.
>>
>> |<--------------c⋅tf---------------->|
>> |<----------L'------------->|<-v⋅tf->|
>>
>> c⋅tf = L' + v⋅tf => tf = L'/(c-v)
>>
>> |<-----------L'------------>|
>> |<--------c⋅tb----->|<-v⋅tb->|
>>
>> L' = c⋅tb + v⋅tb => tb = L'/(c+v)
>>
>> t₁ = tf + tb = 2L'⋅c/(c² + v²) = (2L'/c)⋅γ² = (2L₀/c)⋅γ
>>
>> Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> Then he starts with the equation t' = γ (t - vx/c)
>> and claim that TIME DILATION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time measured in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)⋅γ.
>>
>> Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.
>>
>> Again, he hasn't calculated the time dilation from the equation
>> t' = γ (t - vx/c), but he knows that the time dilation according
>> to SR is Δt' = Δt/γ. And since this IS time dilation, he gets it right.
>>
>> So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?

>
> NO, doctrine-blinded and religion-clothed-brain-arteries, NO!
>
> SR is a deceptive pseudo-science, which FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE OR ELSE.

May I remind you: Your opinion of SR is irrelevant.

The issue is if SR is inconsistent.
You believed you had proved SR inconsistent, but as I have shown
above, you only demonstrated your poor mathematical skills.

SR is a consistent theory, and the only way you can falsify it
is by performing an experiments which prove its predictions wrong.

But you have to PERFORM the experiment in the real word.

Claiming that the experiment below MUST show what you think
it will show is pathetic.

And a little funny. :-D

>
> The time registered in the moving frame by anything (human, ghost or instruments) IS IMMUNE to your stupid Lorentz equations. Time flows normally there.
>
> Throw away the light clock and use a hydrogen maser atomic clock instead. Don't use the fucking giant digital display.
> Use a 1-way microwave link to transmit to the origin the DIGITAL READOUT of the moving clock, up to picoseconds resolution.
>
> At origin of K compare the output of the encoded data with the LOCAL CLOCK tK: THEY ARE THE SAME!

So there is no delay in the microwave link?
Or will you compensate for the unknown distance and
unknown speed of the moving clock?

>
> It's the STUPID LORENTZ EQUATION THAT FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCED TO BELIEVE!

Real several experiments with atomic clock are performed.
The designers of the experiments were smarter that you,
so the experiments worked.

https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
see pages 708-716
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf

Even you know what these experiment show.
You can, and will, kick and scream and claim that
the experiments are faked.

It will only make you look ignorant and pathetic.

>
> That's the tragedy of this shitty pseudo-science: Took a mind like yours, that COULD HAVE BEEN useful before SR absorption of your reasoning,
> and converted it in something small, with fewer capabilities than the brain OF A FUCKING PARROT!
>
> I feel sorry for your wasted life. Now it's too late for you. Deal with it.

Richard, you are not shouting loud enough.
Use more capitals, and more profanities.
One FUCKING PARROT won't do!

Are you getting weak in your old days?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 11:06:52 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.11.2023 23:12, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 11.11.2023 17:30, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 9:48:27 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> So back to the issue of the thread shown in the subject line:
> >> According to Richard Hertz there are "Conflicts in SR when
> >> using horizontal light clocks in the moving frame."
> >>
> >> Richard Hertz claims that SR can predict two different values
> >> for the round trip time in the "stationary frame".
> >>
> >> Let's see how he did it:
> >>
> >> Richards starts with the equation x' = γ(x - vt) and claims that
> >> LENGTH CONTRACTION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time measured (He uses "perceived") in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)/γ,
> >> which means that the light clock is perceived to run fast, not slow.
> >>
> >> He hasn't calculated the length contraction, though. You can't do that
> >> from the equation x' = γ(x - vt) alone. But he knows that according
> >> to SR, the Lorentz contraction is L'= L₀/γ.
> >>
> >> He has made the very naive calculation that since the length is contracted by 1/γ in K, then the round trip time in K must be (2L₀/γ)/c.
> >> This is horribly wrong, because the mirrors are moving in K.
> >> (And this is the only calculation he has made!)
> >>
> >> Here is the correct calculation of the round trip time based
> >> on the correct Lorentz contraction L' = L₀/γ:
> >>
> >> In the following is tf the transit time from A to B,
> >> and tb is the transit time from B to A.
> >>
> >> |<--------------c⋅tf---------------->|
> >> |<----------L'------------->|<-v⋅tf->|
> >>
> >> c⋅tf = L' + v⋅tf => tf = L'/(c-v)
> >>
> >> |<-----------L'------------>|
> >> |<--------c⋅tb----->|<-v⋅tb->|
> >>
> >> L' = c⋅tb + v⋅tb => tb = L'/(c+v)
> >>
> >> t₁ = tf + tb = 2L'⋅c/(c² + v²) = (2L'/c)⋅γ² = (2L₀/c)⋅γ
> >>
> >> Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >>
> >> Then he starts with the equation t' = γ (t - vx/c)
> >> and claim that TIME DILATION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time measured in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)⋅γ.
> >>
> >> Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.
> >>
> >> Again, he hasn't calculated the time dilation from the equation
> >> t' = γ (t - vx/c), but he knows that the time dilation according
> >> to SR is Δt' = Δt/γ. And since this IS time dilation, he gets it right.
> >>
> >> So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?
>
> >
> > NO, doctrine-blinded and religion-clothed-brain-arteries, NO!
> >
> > SR is a deceptive pseudo-science, which FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE OR ELSE.
> May I remind you: Your opinion of SR is irrelevant.
>
> The issue is if SR is inconsistent.
> You believed you had proved SR inconsistent, but as I have shown
> above, you only demonstrated your poor mathematical skills.
>
> SR is a consistent theory,

No, it is not, the proof was demonstrated here
many times.

> and the only way you can falsify it
> is by performing an experiments which prove its predictions wrong.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 10:06:52 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.11.2023 23:12, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 11.11.2023 17:30, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 9:48:27 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> So back to the issue of the thread shown in the subject line:
> >> According to Richard Hertz there are "Conflicts in SR when
> >> using horizontal light clocks in the moving frame."
> >>
> >> Richard Hertz claims that SR can predict two different values
> >> for the round trip time in the "stationary frame".
> >>
> >> Let's see how he did it:
> >>
> >> Richards starts with the equation x' = γ(x - vt) and claims that
> >> LENGTH CONTRACTION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time measured (He uses "perceived") in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)/γ,
> >> which means that the light clock is perceived to run fast, not slow.
> >>
> >> He hasn't calculated the length contraction, though. You can't do that
> >> from the equation x' = γ(x - vt) alone. But he knows that according
> >> to SR, the Lorentz contraction is L'= L₀/γ.
> >>
> >> He has made the very naive calculation that since the length is contracted by 1/γ in K, then the round trip time in K must be (2L₀/γ)/c.
> >> This is horribly wrong, because the mirrors are moving in K.
> >> (And this is the only calculation he has made!)
> >>
> >> Here is the correct calculation of the round trip time based
> >> on the correct Lorentz contraction L' = L₀/γ:
> >>
> >> In the following is tf the transit time from A to B,
> >> and tb is the transit time from B to A.
> >>
> >> |<--------------c⋅tf---------------->|
> >> |<----------L'------------->|<-v⋅tf->|
> >>
> >> c⋅tf = L' + v⋅tf => tf = L'/(c-v)
> >>
> >> |<-----------L'------------>|
> >> |<--------c⋅tb----->|<-v⋅tb->|
> >>
> >> L' = c⋅tb + v⋅tb => tb = L'/(c+v)
> >>
> >> t₁ = tf + tb = 2L'⋅c/(c² + v²) = (2L'/c)⋅γ² = (2L₀/c)⋅γ
> >>
> >> Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >>
> >> Then he starts with the equation t' = γ (t - vx/c)
> >> and claim that TIME DILATION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time measured in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)⋅γ.
> >>
> >> Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.
> >>
> >> Again, he hasn't calculated the time dilation from the equation
> >> t' = γ (t - vx/c), but he knows that the time dilation according
> >> to SR is Δt' = Δt/γ. And since this IS time dilation, he gets it right.
> >>
> >> So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we?
>
> >
> > NO, doctrine-blinded and religion-clothed-brain-arteries, NO!
> >
> > SR is a deceptive pseudo-science, which FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE OR ELSE.
> May I remind you: Your opinion of SR is irrelevant.
>
> The issue is if SR is inconsistent.
> You believed you had proved SR inconsistent, but as I have shown
> above, you only demonstrated your poor mathematical skills.
>
> SR is a consistent theory, and the only way you can falsify it
> is by performing an experiments which prove its predictions wrong.
>
> But you have to PERFORM the experiment in the real word.
>
> Claiming that the experiment below MUST show what you think
> it will show is pathetic.
>
> And a little funny. :-D
> >
> > The time registered in the moving frame by anything (human, ghost or instruments) IS IMMUNE to your stupid Lorentz equations. Time flows normally there.
> >
> > Throw away the light clock and use a hydrogen maser atomic clock instead. Don't use the fucking giant digital display.
> > Use a 1-way microwave link to transmit to the origin the DIGITAL READOUT of the moving clock, up to picoseconds resolution.
> >
> > At origin of K compare the output of the encoded data with the LOCAL CLOCK tK: THEY ARE THE SAME!
> So there is no delay in the microwave link?
> Or will you compensate for the unknown distance and
> unknown speed of the moving clock?
> >
> > It's the STUPID LORENTZ EQUATION THAT FORCES YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCED TO BELIEVE!
> Real several experiments with atomic clock are performed.
> The designers of the experiments were smarter that you,
> so the experiments worked.
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
> see pages 708-716
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
>
> Even you know what these experiment show.
> You can, and will, kick and scream and claim that
> the experiments are faked.
>
> It will only make you look ignorant and pathetic.
> >
> > That's the tragedy of this shitty pseudo-science: Took a mind like yours, that COULD HAVE BEEN useful before SR absorption of your reasoning,
> > and converted it in something small, with fewer capabilities than the brain OF A FUCKING PARROT!
> >
> > I feel sorry for your wasted life. Now it's too late for you. Deal with it.
> Richard, you are not shouting loud enough.
> Use more capitals, and more profanities.
> One FUCKING PARROT won't do!
>
> Are you getting weak in your old days?
>

In your website table you have the following data.

r rate
----------------------
10R 1.000000000626
9R 1.000000000618
8R 1.000000000608
7R 1.000000000596
6R 1.000000000579
5R 1.000000000556
4R 1.000000000522
3R 1.000000000464
2R 1.000000000348
1R 1.000000000000

https://paulba.no/temp/ClockRate.pdf

Is that picoseconds gained per second?
How would you calculate what frequency the rest frame
(1R) c-133 atom frequency of 9192661770 hz would be at 2R?

Den 13.11.2023 14:36, skrev Lou:
>
> In your website table you have the following data.
>
> r rate
> ----------------------
> 10R 1.000000000626
> 9R 1.000000000618
> 8R 1.000000000608
> 7R 1.000000000596
> 6R 1.000000000579
> 5R 1.000000000556
> 4R 1.000000000522
> 3R 1.000000000464
> 2R 1.000000000348
> 1R 1.000000000000
>
> https://paulba.no/temp/ClockRate.pdf
>
> Is that picoseconds gained per second?

Read the statement above the table:
“r" is the distance from the clock to the centre of the Earth.
"R" is the radius of the Earth.
The clock transmits a frequency 1 Hz,
"rate" is the frequency received on the ground.

Gravitational Doppler shift, Gravitational blue shift.

> How would you calculate what frequency the rest frame
> (1R) c-133 atom frequency of 9192661770 hz would be at 2R?

It can't be "calculated".
The frequency of the photon associated with
the ground-state hyperfine transition of
the cesium-133 atom is 9192631770 Hz by definition.
Everywhere. Always.

Fact! Nothing to discuss.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 19:36:49 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> the cesium-133 atom is 9192631770 Hz by definition.
> Everywhere. Always.
> Fact! Nothing to discuss.

Everywhere, always in your gedankenwelt, poor
halfbrain. Anyone can check GPS, outside
your moronic church this definition is pissed at,
Everywhere, always, the fact, nothing to discuss.

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 18:36:49 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.11.2023 14:36, skrev Lou:
> >
> > In your website table you have the following data.
> >
> > r rate
> > ----------------------
> > 10R 1.000000000626
> > 9R 1.000000000618
> > 8R 1.000000000608
> > 7R 1.000000000596
> > 6R 1.000000000579
> > 5R 1.000000000556
> > 4R 1.000000000522
> > 3R 1.000000000464
> > 2R 1.000000000348
> > 1R 1.000000000000
> >
> > https://paulba.no/temp/ClockRate.pdf
> >
> > Is that picoseconds gained per second?
> Read the statement above the table:
> “r" is the distance from the clock to the centre of the Earth.
> "R" is the radius of the Earth.
> The clock transmits a frequency 1 Hz,
> "rate" is the frequency received on the ground.
>
> Gravitational Doppler shift, Gravitational blue shift.
> > How would you calculate what frequency the rest frame
> > (1R) c-133 atom frequency of 9192661770 hz would be at 2R?
> It can't be "calculated".
> The frequency of the photon associated with
> the ground-state hyperfine transition of
> the cesium-133 atom is 9192631770 Hz by definition.
> Everywhere. Always.
>
> Fact! Nothing to discuss.
>
Yes I realise that under GR the rule is c-133 frequency never changes.
Under GR its always everywhere the same. But you say a broadcast
frequency can appear to be blueshifted to an observer on the ground
and I’m trying to find out what that blueshifted f would be to an
earth ground observer.
So if it were possible to observe, from the ground, a clock orbiting at 2R.
What frequency would 9192631770 Hz on a clock at 2R be blueshifted to
an observer on the ground be? Would it appear to a ground observer
to be 9192631773.48hz ?

On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 20:36:42 UTC+1, Lou wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2023 at 18:36:49 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 13.11.2023 14:36, skrev Lou:
> > >
> > > In your website table you have the following data.
> > >
> > > r rate
> > > ----------------------
> > > 10R 1.000000000626
> > > 9R 1.000000000618
> > > 8R 1.000000000608
> > > 7R 1.000000000596
> > > 6R 1.000000000579
> > > 5R 1.000000000556
> > > 4R 1.000000000522
> > > 3R 1.000000000464
> > > 2R 1.000000000348
> > > 1R 1.000000000000
> > >
> > > https://paulba.no/temp/ClockRate.pdf
> > >
> > > Is that picoseconds gained per second?
> > Read the statement above the table:
> > “r" is the distance from the clock to the centre of the Earth.
> > "R" is the radius of the Earth.
> > The clock transmits a frequency 1 Hz,
> > "rate" is the frequency received on the ground.
> >
> > Gravitational Doppler shift, Gravitational blue shift.
> > > How would you calculate what frequency the rest frame
> > > (1R) c-133 atom frequency of 9192661770 hz would be at 2R?
> > It can't be "calculated".
> > The frequency of the photon associated with
> > the ground-state hyperfine transition of
> > the cesium-133 atom is 9192631770 Hz by definition.
> > Everywhere. Always.
> >
> > Fact! Nothing to discuss.
> >
> Yes I realise that under GR the rule is c-133 frequency never changes.
> Under GR its always everywhere the same. But

But a relativistic idiot can't understand that GPS
is ruled by common sense (this collection of prejudices),
not by Giant Guru and his minions.

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 3:36:49 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.11.2023 14:36, skrev Lou:
> >
> > In your website table you have the following data.
> >
> > r rate
> > ----------------------
> > 10R 1.000000000626
> > 9R 1.000000000618
> > 8R 1.000000000608
> > 7R 1.000000000596
> > 6R 1.000000000579
> > 5R 1.000000000556
> > 4R 1.000000000522
> > 3R 1.000000000464
> > 2R 1.000000000348
> > 1R 1.000000000000
> >
> > https://paulba.no/temp/ClockRate.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/temp/ClockRate.pdf
> >
> > Is that picoseconds gained per second?
> Read the statement above the table:
> “r" is the distance from the clock to the centre of the Earth.
> "R" is the radius of the Earth.
> The clock transmits a frequency 1 Hz,
> "rate" is the frequency received on the ground.
>
> Gravitational Doppler shift, Gravitational blue shift.
> > How would you calculate what frequency the rest frame
> > (1R) c-133 atom frequency of 9192661770 hz would be at 2R?
> It can't be "calculated".
> The frequency of the photon associated with
> the ground-state hyperfine transition of
> the cesium-133 atom is 9192631770 Hz by definition.
> Everywhere. Always.
>
> Fact! Nothing to discuss.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

You are full of crap, as always.

First, you pollute this thread arguing nonsense around my OP.

Now you introduce more crap, playing with Einstein's 1911 crap. Why don't you take a rest?

You introduce gravitational time dilation playing with 1911 Einstein's shit:

Δf/f = ΔT/T = Δɸ/c = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/rₑ) = - 4.4350E-03 ((1/r - 1/6378136.55)

Then, normalize (for r = rₑ), ΔT/T = 1.00000000, instead of 0.000000, and call it 1 SECOND.

Finally, you ASSERT THAT time dilation (without ANY PROOF) occurs as the clock raises N. rₑ units from above Earth's surface:

ΔT(N) = Δɸ/c =1.000000000 - GMₑ/rₑc² (1/N - 1)

What generates

Te +ΔT(1) = 1.00000000000000 sec
Te +ΔT(2) = 1.00000000034767 sec
Te +ΔT(3) = 1.00000000046357 sec
Te +ΔT(4) = 1.00000000052151 sec
Te +ΔT(5) = 1.00000000055628 sec
Te +ΔT(6) = 1.00000000057946 sec
Te +ΔT(7) = 1.00000000059601 sec
Te +ΔT(8) = 1.00000000060843 sec
Te +ΔT(9) = 1.00000000061809 sec
Te +ΔT(10) = 1.00000000062581 sec

Your manipulation of the 1911 Einstein's STUPID FORMULA to express gravitational time dilation is, to the least, disgusting and repulsive.

Another proof that you are a very sick, deceitful relativist, who only can live by disseminating crappy and FALSE assertions about relativity.

Retire now from this SERIOUS

Den 14.11.2023 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
>
> You are full of crap, as always.
>
> First, you pollute this thread arguing nonsense around my OP.

You mean when I pointed out that you in your OP
didn't succeed in proving SR inconsistent?

I love to rub it in, so let's review your failed attempt again:

Richards starts with the equation x' = γ(x - vt) and claims that
LENGTH CONTRACTION leads to the conclusion that the round trip time
measured (He uses "perceived") in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)/γ,
which means that the light clock is perceived to run fast, not slow.

He hasn't calculated the length contraction, though. You can't do that
from the equation x' = γ(x - vt) alone. But he knows that according
to SR, the Lorentz contraction is L'= L₀/γ.

He has made the very naive calculation that since the length is
contracted by 1/γ in K, then the round trip time in K must be (2L₀/γ)/c.
This is horribly wrong, because the mirrors are moving in K.
(And this is the only calculation he has made!)

Here is the correct calculation of the round trip time based
on the correct Lorentz contraction L' = L₀/γ:

In the following is tf the transit time from A to B,
and tb is the transit time from B to A.

|<--------------c⋅tf---------------->|
|<----------L'------------->|<-v⋅tf->|

c⋅tf = L' + v⋅tf => tf = L'/(c-v)

|<-----------L'------------>|
|<--------c⋅tb----->|<-v⋅tb->|

L' = c⋅tb + v⋅tb => tb = L'/(c+v)

t₁ = tf + tb = 2L'⋅c/(c² + v²) = (2L'/c)⋅γ² = (2L₀/c)⋅γ

Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.

-------------------

Then he starts with the equation t' = γ (t - vx/c)
and claim that TIME DILATION leads to the conclusion that the round trip
time measured in the stationary frame K is (2L₀/c)⋅γ.

Which is correct, and the same as predicted by the Lorentz transform.

Again, he hasn't calculated the time dilation from the equation
t' = γ (t - vx/c), but he knows that the time dilation according
to SR is Δt' = Δt/γ. And since this IS time dilation, he gets it right.

--------------

So you see, Richard, when the only calculation you made is corrected,
you have not proved that SR is inconsistent, but have given two
calculations which confirm SR.

So we can conclude that SR is consistent! Can't we? :-D

>
> Now you introduce more crap, playing with Einstein's 1911 crap. Why don't you take a rest? >
> You introduce gravitational time dilation playing with 1911 Einstein's shit:

>
> Δf/f = ΔT/T = Δɸ/c = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/rₑ) = - 4.4350E-03 ((1/r - 1/6378136.55)
>
> Then, normalize (for r = rₑ), ΔT/T = 1.00000000, instead of 0.000000, and call it 1 SECOND.
>
> Finally, you ASSERT THAT time dilation (without ANY PROOF) occurs as the clock raises N. rₑ units from above Earth's surface:
>
> ΔT(N) = Δɸ/c =1.000000000 - GMₑ/rₑc² (1/N - 1)
>
> What generates
>
> Te +ΔT(1) = 1.00000000000000 sec
> Te +ΔT(2) = 1.00000000034767 sec
> Te +ΔT(3) = 1.00000000046357 sec
> Te +ΔT(4) = 1.00000000052151 sec
> Te +ΔT(5) = 1.00000000055628 sec
> Te +ΔT(6) = 1.00000000057946 sec
> Te +ΔT(7) = 1.00000000059601 sec
> Te +ΔT(8) = 1.00000000060843 sec
> Te +ΔT(9) = 1.00000000061809 sec
> Te +ΔT(10) = 1.00000000062581 sec
>
>
> Your manipulation of the 1911 Einstein's STUPID FORMULA to express gravitational time dilation is, to the least, disgusting and repulsive.

Your manipulation of the 1911 Einstein's STUPID FORMULA
has shown that according to Einstein, the gravitational
red shift of a clock at 10R observed on the ground is:
f_received/f_emitted = 0.9999999993741899

Well done Richard, your mathematical skills are very impressing!

(Hint: Δf/f = ΔT/T) :-D

>
> Another proof that you are a very sick, deceitful relativist, who only can live by disseminating crappy and FALSE assertions about relativity.
>
> Retire now from this SERIOUS

Mind the blood pressure, Richard.

--
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/