Consider a distant observer traveling towards Big Ben in London at the customary .867c. When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year, between them lies a helical path of light originating from the tip of Big Ben's little hand. At the aforesaid distance of one light year, the reader can easily calculate that the aforesaid helix has precisely 730.5 turns.

At a velocity of .867c it will take the distant observer 1.1534 years to travel one light year and reach Big Ben, during which time Big Ben's little hand will have produced another 848.33 turns of the helix, for a total of 1579 turns. So the distant observer is able to count at most 1579 turns of the helix on his 1.1534 light year trip to Big Ben from one light year away at a velocity of .867c

Now we apply the relativistic Doppler formula to the revolution of Big Ben's little hand from the stand point of the distant observer. With the direction of travel towards BB, and beta equal to .867, we arrived at a doppler multiplier of 3.747. Therefore the distant observer must count 2738 revolutions per year due to relativistic doppler, for a source frequency of 730.5 revolutions per year. So during his 1.1534 year trip, according to the relativistic doppler formula, the distant observer must count 3158 revolutions of Big Ben's little hand.

Gentle reader, I ask you to consider which answer to this conundrum are we to choose? Does the distant observer count 1579 revolutions or 3158 revolutions? Must it be one or the other? Or can it be both? Careful.

Part Two coming soon...

On 10-Dec-23 8:24 am, patdolan wrote:
>When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year

I'm sure you've been told before that this is meaningless, and that the
rest of your argument falls apart accordingly.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Dec-23 8:24 am, patdolan wrote:
> >When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year
> I'm sure you've been told before that this is meaningless, and that the
> rest of your argument falls apart accordingly.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia, does this mean that the statement below from Cal-Tech Cosmos is also meaningless? If not, why not?

"Proxima Centauri is a small, low-mass star located 4.2465 light-years (1.3020 pc) away from the Sun"

On Saturday 9 December 2023 at 22:24:20 UTC+1, patdolan wrote:
> Consider a distant observer traveling towards Big Ben in London at the customary .867c. When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year, between them lies a helical path of light originating from the tip of Big Ben's little hand. At the aforesaid distance of one light year, the reader can easily calculate that the aforesaid helix has precisely 730.5 turns.
>
> At a velocity of .867c it will take the distant observer 1.1534 years to travel one light year and reach Big Ben, during which time Big Ben's little hand will have produced another 848.33 turns of the helix, for a total of 1579 turns. So the distant observer is able to count at most 1579 turns of the helix on his 1.1534 light year trip to Big Ben from one light year away at a velocity of .867c
>
> Now we apply the relativistic Doppler formula to the revolution of Big Ben's little hand from the stand point of the distant observer. With the direction of travel towards BB, and beta equal to .867, we arrived at a doppler multiplier of 3.747. Therefore the distant observer must count 2738 revolutions per year due to relativistic doppler, for a source frequency of 730.5 revolutions per year. So during his 1.1534 year trip, according to the relativistic doppler formula, the distant observer must count 3158 revolutions of Big Ben's little hand.
>
> Gentle reader, I ask you to consider which answer to this conundrum are we to choose? Does the distant observer count 1579 revolutions or 3158 revolutions? Must it be one or the other? Or can it be both? Careful.

The main problem with both physicists and wannabe physicist
is - having no clue what an observer is or how it works
they fabricate completely delusional tales about him and
take them for the reality.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 8:10:23 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday 9 December 2023 at 22:24:20 UTC+1, patdolan wrote:
> > Consider a distant observer traveling towards Big Ben in London at the customary .867c. When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year, between them lies a helical path of light originating from the tip of Big Ben's little hand. At the aforesaid distance of one light year, the reader can easily calculate that the aforesaid helix has precisely 730.5 turns.
> >
> > At a velocity of .867c it will take the distant observer 1.1534 years to travel one light year and reach Big Ben, during which time Big Ben's little hand will have produced another 848.33 turns of the helix, for a total of 1579 turns. So the distant observer is able to count at most 1579 turns of the helix on his 1.1534 light year trip to Big Ben from one light year away at a velocity of .867c
> >
> > Now we apply the relativistic Doppler formula to the revolution of Big Ben's little hand from the stand point of the distant observer. With the direction of travel towards BB, and beta equal to .867, we arrived at a doppler multiplier of 3.747. Therefore the distant observer must count 2738 revolutions per year due to relativistic doppler, for a source frequency of 730..5 revolutions per year. So during his 1.1534 year trip, according to the relativistic doppler formula, the distant observer must count 3158 revolutions of Big Ben's little hand.
> >
> > Gentle reader, I ask you to consider which answer to this conundrum are we to choose? Does the distant observer count 1579 revolutions or 3158 revolutions? Must it be one or the other? Or can it be both? Careful.
> The main problem with both physicists and wannabe physicist
> is - having no clue what an observer is or how it works
> they fabricate completely delusional tales about him and
> take them for the reality.

There are a lot of pitfalls and traps in this scenario. It's a veritable mishmash of inconsistencies brought about by trying to Lorentz transform the Doppler effect. We will touch on all of them as the relativity stooges report in, one by one.

I challenge just one of them to make sense of the Helical Path Paradox.

On 10-Dec-23 2:43 pm, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-Dec-23 8:24 am, patdolan wrote:
>>> When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year
>> I'm sure you've been told before that this is meaningless, and that the
>> rest of your argument falls apart accordingly.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Sylvia, does this mean that the statement below from Cal-Tech Cosmos is also meaningless? If not, why not?
>
> "Proxima Centauri is a small, low-mass star located 4.2465 light-years (1.3020 pc) away from the Sun"

No. The main reason is that it's not referencing a distance at two
different places. Also, the star is not moving at a significant fraction
of the speed of light relative to the solar system.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 2:51:14 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Dec-23 2:43 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 10-Dec-23 8:24 am, patdolan wrote:
> >>> When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year
> >> I'm sure you've been told before that this is meaningless, and that the
> >> rest of your argument falls apart accordingly.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > Sylvia, does this mean that the statement below from Cal-Tech Cosmos is also meaningless? If not, why not?
> >
> > "Proxima Centauri is a small, low-mass star located 4.2465 light-years (1.3020 pc) away from the Sun"
> No. The main reason is that it's not referencing a distance at two
> different places. Also, the star is not moving at a significant fraction
> of the speed of light relative to the solar system.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia, thank you for broaching the subject of relativistic velocity qua perceived distances. You have doubtlessly noticed the 2:1 ratio of the helical turn counts. You know what that implies in view of gamma = 2. You obviously understand what is at issue here. Yet you quail at making the full argument. Please do so. It is essential to my ultimate dismantling of the relativistic doppler.

On 11-Dec-23 11:56 am, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 2:51:14 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-Dec-23 2:43 pm, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 10-Dec-23 8:24 am, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year
>>>> I'm sure you've been told before that this is meaningless, and that the
>>>> rest of your argument falls apart accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>> Sylvia, does this mean that the statement below from Cal-Tech Cosmos is also meaningless? If not, why not?
>>>
>>> "Proxima Centauri is a small, low-mass star located 4.2465 light-years (1.3020 pc) away from the Sun"
>> No. The main reason is that it's not referencing a distance at two
>> different places. Also, the star is not moving at a significant fraction
>> of the speed of light relative to the solar system.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Sylvia, thank you for broaching the subject of relativistic velocity qua perceived distances. You have doubtlessly noticed the 2:1 ratio of the helical turn counts. You know what that implies in view of gamma = 2. You obviously understand what is at issue here. Yet you quail at making the full argument. Please do so. It is essential to my ultimate dismantling of the relativistic doppler.

Your argument doesn't work. I've told you why.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 9:36:28 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11-Dec-23 11:56 am, patdolan wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 2:51:14 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 10-Dec-23 2:43 pm, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 10-Dec-23 8:24 am, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> When the distant observer and BB are separated by one light year
> >>>> I'm sure you've been told before that this is meaningless, and that the
> >>>> rest of your argument falls apart accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>> Sylvia, does this mean that the statement below from Cal-Tech Cosmos is also meaningless? If not, why not?
> >>>
> >>> "Proxima Centauri is a small, low-mass star located 4.2465 light-years (1.3020 pc) away from the Sun"
> >> No. The main reason is that it's not referencing a distance at two
> >> different places. Also, the star is not moving at a significant fraction
> >> of the speed of light relative to the solar system.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > Sylvia, thank you for broaching the subject of relativistic velocity qua perceived distances. You have doubtlessly noticed the 2:1 ratio of the helical turn counts. You know what that implies in view of gamma = 2. You obviously understand what is at issue here. Yet you quail at making the full argument. Please do so. It is essential to my ultimate dismantling of the relativistic doppler.
> Your argument doesn't work. I've told you why.
>
> Sylvia.
From whence this reticence, Sylvia? Hmm...Could it be that you, Roberts and the rest sense the ambush that has been lain for you by one of the world's greatest living forensic algebraicists?

On 12/9/23 3:24 PM, patdolan wrote:
> Consider a distant observer traveling towards Big Ben in London at
> the customary .867c. When the distant observer and BB are separated
> by one light year, between them lies a helical path of light
> originating from the tip of Big Ben's little hand. At the aforesaid
> distance of one light year, the reader can easily calculate that the
> aforesaid helix has precisely 730.5 turns.

Yes. 365.25*2 = 730.6. The little hand makes two revolutions per day in
the earth rest frame. Note the number of turns in the helical path
between these two fixed points is invariant.

> At a velocity of .867c it will take the distant observer 1.1534
> years to travel one light year and reach Big Ben, during which time
> Big Ben's little hand will have produced another 848.33 turns of the
> helix, for a total of 1579 turns. So the distant observer is able
> to count at most 1579 turns of the helix on his 1.1534 light year
> trip to Big Ben from one light year away at a velocity of .867c

Not "at most 1579 turns", that is the number they must count during this
trip. Note also that the duration of 1.1534 years is in the earth rest
frame.

> Now we apply the relativistic Doppler formula to the revolution of
> Big Ben's little hand from the stand point of the distant observer.
> With the direction of travel towards BB, and beta equal to .867, we
> arrived at a doppler multiplier of 3.747. Therefore the distant
> observer must count 2738 revolutions per year due to relativistic
> doppler, for a source frequency of 730.5 revolutions per year. So
> during his 1.1534 year trip, according to the relativistic doppler
> formula, the distant observer must count 3158 revolutions of Big
> Ben's little hand.

Nope. You used the Doppler formula for the moving observer, so you must
consider this from their frame. The trip takes 1.1534 years in the earth
rest frame. The gamma for v=0.866c is 2.000, so the trip takes 0.5767
years in the moving observer's frame, and they count 1579 turns.

You made the newbie's mistake of using the wrong frame.

> Gentle reader, I ask you to consider which answer to this conundrum
> are we to choose?

Either calculation, WHEN THEY ARE PERFORMED CORRECTLY. Both predict the
moving observer will count 1579 turns.

Your attempt to "demolish Doppler" fails due to you elementary mistake.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 04:08:36 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Nope. You used the Doppler formula for the moving observer, so you must
> consider this from their frame. The trip takes 1.1534 years in the earth
> rest frame. The gamma for v=0.866c is 2.000, so the trip takes 0.5767
> years in the moving observer's frame, and they count 1579 turns.

Having GPS around we can be absolutely sure, however,
that these absurd delusions have nothing in common with
the real clocks, the real observers or real anything.