This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:

"Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."

I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:

Consider a distant observer traveling at 0.867c ( 𝛾 = 2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with relativistic time dilation. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.

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

On 12/21/23 11:39 AM, patdolan wrote:
> I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
> [...]

The entire paragraph is untrue, based only on you personal
misunderstanding of General Relativity.

Tom Roberts

On 12/21/2023 12:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:
>
> "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
> Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."
>
> I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
[...]
>
> From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.

This part is untrue. (ok maybe you can argue the observer mistakenly
concludes earth's orbital velocity is too small and it is true the
observer makes that mistaken conclusion, but the point is, the
conclusion itself is wrong)

Why? Because in the frame of the observer, the sun approaches at .866c
BUT the earth also approaches at about .866c. The exact velocity is the
relativistic addition of the sun's speed and the earth's orbital speed
around the sun. Making any conclusion about the earth by using the
earth's observed orbital period in the frame where the earth orbits the
sun by the observer is frame jumping, which is wrong. You need to
analyze the problem in one frame or the other, not bits from each frame.
And since you are invoking the gravitation of the sun on earth, you need
to use GR in your calculations (SR assumes no or insignificant gravity).

As you have been told REPEATEDLY.
>
> Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?

Because you're frame jumping.

On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 2:30:38 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/21/2023 12:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:
> >
> > "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
> > Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."
> >
> > I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
> [...]
> >
> > From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.
> This part is untrue. (ok maybe you can argue the observer mistakenly
> concludes earth's orbital velocity is too small and it is true the
> observer makes that mistaken conclusion, but the point is, the
> conclusion itself is wrong)
>
> Why? Because in the frame of the observer, the sun approaches at .866c
> BUT the earth also approaches at about .866c. The exact velocity is the
> relativistic addition of the sun's speed and the earth's orbital speed
> around the sun. Making any conclusion about the earth by using the
> earth's observed orbital period in the frame where the earth orbits the
> sun by the observer is frame jumping, which is wrong.
"Frame Jumping" lies at the very heart of the Principle of Relativity. Frame Jumping is also known as the first postulate.

"The first postulate of special relativity states that the laws of physics and electromagnetism are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This implies that the experiments performed in stationary and moving inertial frames yield the same results."

You need to
> analyze the problem in one frame or the other, not bits from each frame.
> And since you are invoking the gravitation of the sun on earth, you need
> to use GR in your calculations (SR assumes no or insignificant gravity).
There are no GR calculations, no amount of Tensor multiplication that can keep the earth from spiraling into the sun. Prove me wrong.
>
> As you have been told REPEATEDLY.
> >
> > Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
> Because you're frame jumping.

On 12/21/2023 6:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 2:30:38 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/21/2023 12:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:
>>>
>>> "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
>>> Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."
>>>
>>> I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.
>> This part is untrue. (ok maybe you can argue the observer mistakenly
>> concludes earth's orbital velocity is too small and it is true the
>> observer makes that mistaken conclusion, but the point is, the
>> conclusion itself is wrong)
>>
>> Why? Because in the frame of the observer, the sun approaches at .866c
>> BUT the earth also approaches at about .866c. The exact velocity is the
>> relativistic addition of the sun's speed and the earth's orbital speed
>> around the sun. Making any conclusion about the earth by using the
>> earth's observed orbital period in the frame where the earth orbits the
>> sun by the observer is frame jumping, which is wrong.

> "Frame Jumping" lies at the very heart of the Principle of Relativity. Frame Jumping is also known as the first postulate.

Frame jumping has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. Frame
jumping is a mistake in analyzing a problem by combining the results of
two (or more) frames without using a transformation such as the Lorentz
Transformation.

For example, your "conclusion" mixes the results of the earth-sun frame
when considering the orbit of earth and the results of the observer
approaching at .866c. Or measuring the wavelength of light at the source
of a moving star and the redshifted frequency of the light reaching
earth, multiplying them and concluding that light moved at less than c.
(Ken Seto's mistake, one of many)
>
> "The first postulate of special relativity states that the laws of physics and electromagnetism are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This implies that the experiments performed in stationary and moving inertial frames yield the same results."
>
> You need to
>> analyze the problem in one frame or the other, not bits from each frame.
>> And since you are invoking the gravitation of the sun on earth, you need
>> to use GR in your calculations (SR assumes no or insignificant gravity).
> There are no GR calculations, no amount of Tensor multiplication that can keep the earth from spiraling into the sun. Prove me wrong.
>>
>> As you have been told REPEATEDLY.
>>>
>>> Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
>> Because you're frame jumping.

On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/21/2023 6:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 2:30:38 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/21/2023 12:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:
> >>>
> >>> "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
> >>> Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."
> >>>
> >>> I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
> >> [...]
> >>>
> >>> From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.
> >> This part is untrue. (ok maybe you can argue the observer mistakenly
> >> concludes earth's orbital velocity is too small and it is true the
> >> observer makes that mistaken conclusion, but the point is, the
> >> conclusion itself is wrong)
> >>
> >> Why? Because in the frame of the observer, the sun approaches at .866c
> >> BUT the earth also approaches at about .866c. The exact velocity is the
> >> relativistic addition of the sun's speed and the earth's orbital speed
> >> around the sun. Making any conclusion about the earth by using the
> >> earth's observed orbital period in the frame where the earth orbits the
> >> sun by the observer is frame jumping, which is wrong.
>
> > "Frame Jumping" lies at the very heart of the Principle of Relativity. Frame Jumping is also known as the first postulate.
> Frame jumping has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. Frame
> jumping is a mistake in analyzing a problem by combining the results of
> two (or more) frames without using a transformation such as the Lorentz
> Transformation.
>
> For example, your "conclusion" mixes the results of the earth-sun frame
> when considering the orbit of earth and the results of the observer
> approaching at .866c. Or measuring the wavelength of light at the source
> of a moving star and the redshifted frequency of the light reaching
> earth, multiplying them and concluding that light moved at less than c.
> (Ken Seto's mistake, one of many)
> >
> > "The first postulate of special relativity states that the laws of physics and electromagnetism are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This implies that the experiments performed in stationary and moving inertial frames yield the same results."
> >
> > You need to
> >> analyze the problem in one frame or the other, not bits from each frame.
> >> And since you are invoking the gravitation of the sun on earth, you need
> >> to use GR in your calculations (SR assumes no or insignificant gravity).
> > There are no GR calculations, no amount of Tensor multiplication that can keep the earth from spiraling into the sun. Prove me wrong.
> >>
> >> As you have been told REPEATEDLY.
> >>>
> >>> Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
> >> Because you're frame jumping.

Volroney, you and Tom Roberts will never falsify the BBP unless and until you show the forum (and all the other forums in which the BBP now stands sentinel) the specific GR calculations that conclusively demonstrate that the distance the earth remains from the sun is constant in all inertial frames. Since both of you lack the expertise to do this--indeed no one alive has such expertise--the BBP remains as a not-so-silent grave marker of the principle of SR and/or GR.

On 12/22/2023 12:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/21/2023 6:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 2:30:38 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/2023 12:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
>>>>> Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."
>>>>>
>>>>> I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.
>>>> This part is untrue. (ok maybe you can argue the observer mistakenly
>>>> concludes earth's orbital velocity is too small and it is true the
>>>> observer makes that mistaken conclusion, but the point is, the
>>>> conclusion itself is wrong)
>>>>
>>>> Why? Because in the frame of the observer, the sun approaches at .866c
>>>> BUT the earth also approaches at about .866c. The exact velocity is the
>>>> relativistic addition of the sun's speed and the earth's orbital speed
>>>> around the sun. Making any conclusion about the earth by using the
>>>> earth's observed orbital period in the frame where the earth orbits the
>>>> sun by the observer is frame jumping, which is wrong.
>>
>>> "Frame Jumping" lies at the very heart of the Principle of Relativity. Frame Jumping is also known as the first postulate.
>> Frame jumping has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. Frame
>> jumping is a mistake in analyzing a problem by combining the results of
>> two (or more) frames without using a transformation such as the Lorentz
>> Transformation.
>>
>> For example, your "conclusion" mixes the results of the earth-sun frame
>> when considering the orbit of earth and the results of the observer
>> approaching at .866c. Or measuring the wavelength of light at the source
>> of a moving star and the redshifted frequency of the light reaching
>> earth, multiplying them and concluding that light moved at less than c.
>> (Ken Seto's mistake, one of many)
>>>
>>> "The first postulate of special relativity states that the laws of physics and electromagnetism are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This implies that the experiments performed in stationary and moving inertial frames yield the same results."
>>>
>>> You need to
>>>> analyze the problem in one frame or the other, not bits from each frame.
>>>> And since you are invoking the gravitation of the sun on earth, you need
>>>> to use GR in your calculations (SR assumes no or insignificant gravity).
>>> There are no GR calculations, no amount of Tensor multiplication that can keep the earth from spiraling into the sun. Prove me wrong.
>>>>
>>>> As you have been told REPEATEDLY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
>>>> Because you're frame jumping.
>
> Volroney, you and Tom Roberts will never falsify the BBP

I just showed you what was wrong with your claim.

So did Tom. Repeatedly.

> unless and until you show the forum (and all the other forums in which the BBP now stands sentinel) the specific GR calculations that conclusively demonstrate that the distance the earth remains from the sun is constant in all inertial frames.

It is your claim, it is up to you to demonstrate that. Without frame
jumping. See Tom's previous answers as to why your claims are wrong, he
can explain it better than I can.

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:48:46 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/22/2023 12:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/21/2023 6:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 2:30:38 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/21/2023 12:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>> This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
> >>>>> Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.
> >>>> This part is untrue. (ok maybe you can argue the observer mistakenly
> >>>> concludes earth's orbital velocity is too small and it is true the
> >>>> observer makes that mistaken conclusion, but the point is, the
> >>>> conclusion itself is wrong)
> >>>>
> >>>> Why? Because in the frame of the observer, the sun approaches at .866c
> >>>> BUT the earth also approaches at about .866c. The exact velocity is the
> >>>> relativistic addition of the sun's speed and the earth's orbital speed
> >>>> around the sun. Making any conclusion about the earth by using the
> >>>> earth's observed orbital period in the frame where the earth orbits the
> >>>> sun by the observer is frame jumping, which is wrong.
> >>
> >>> "Frame Jumping" lies at the very heart of the Principle of Relativity.. Frame Jumping is also known as the first postulate.
> >> Frame jumping has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. Frame
> >> jumping is a mistake in analyzing a problem by combining the results of
> >> two (or more) frames without using a transformation such as the Lorentz
> >> Transformation.
> >>
> >> For example, your "conclusion" mixes the results of the earth-sun frame
> >> when considering the orbit of earth and the results of the observer
> >> approaching at .866c. Or measuring the wavelength of light at the source
> >> of a moving star and the redshifted frequency of the light reaching
> >> earth, multiplying them and concluding that light moved at less than c..
> >> (Ken Seto's mistake, one of many)
> >>>
> >>> "The first postulate of special relativity states that the laws of physics and electromagnetism are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This implies that the experiments performed in stationary and moving inertial frames yield the same results."
> >>>
> >>> You need to
> >>>> analyze the problem in one frame or the other, not bits from each frame.
> >>>> And since you are invoking the gravitation of the sun on earth, you need
> >>>> to use GR in your calculations (SR assumes no or insignificant gravity).
> >>> There are no GR calculations, no amount of Tensor multiplication that can keep the earth from spiraling into the sun. Prove me wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> As you have been told REPEATEDLY.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
> >>>> Because you're frame jumping.
> >
> > Volroney, you and Tom Roberts will never falsify the BBP
> I just showed you what was wrong with your claim.
>
> So did Tom. Repeatedly.
> > unless and until you show the forum (and all the other forums in which the BBP now stands sentinel) the specific GR calculations that conclusively demonstrate that the distance the earth remains from the sun is constant in all inertial frames.
> It is your claim, it is up to you to demonstrate that. Without frame
> jumping. See Tom's previous answers as to why your claims are wrong, he
> can explain it better than I can.
No, he can't. His claim, with no calculative proof, is that every word of the BBP is false. He has no argument. Only accusation. Accusation without argument. Conclusion with no prior deduction. Removal from the ballot with no judicial finding.

On 12/22/2023 11:06 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 7:48:46 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/22/2023 12:51 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/2023 6:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 2:30:38 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/21/2023 12:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> This time it is Reddit that refuses to publish the Big Ben Paradox. Here is the reason as stated by Reddit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/Physics.
>>>>>>> Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I challenge anyone to find an unsafe, uncivil or untrue word in my submission to Reddit:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in a stable orbit around the sun, given the invariant spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun through which the earth’s geodesic passes.
>>>>>> This part is untrue. (ok maybe you can argue the observer mistakenly
>>>>>> concludes earth's orbital velocity is too small and it is true the
>>>>>> observer makes that mistaken conclusion, but the point is, the
>>>>>> conclusion itself is wrong)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? Because in the frame of the observer, the sun approaches at .866c
>>>>>> BUT the earth also approaches at about .866c. The exact velocity is the
>>>>>> relativistic addition of the sun's speed and the earth's orbital speed
>>>>>> around the sun. Making any conclusion about the earth by using the
>>>>>> earth's observed orbital period in the frame where the earth orbits the
>>>>>> sun by the observer is frame jumping, which is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> "Frame Jumping" lies at the very heart of the Principle of Relativity. Frame Jumping is also known as the first postulate.
>>>> Frame jumping has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. Frame
>>>> jumping is a mistake in analyzing a problem by combining the results of
>>>> two (or more) frames without using a transformation such as the Lorentz
>>>> Transformation.
>>>>
>>>> For example, your "conclusion" mixes the results of the earth-sun frame
>>>> when considering the orbit of earth and the results of the observer
>>>> approaching at .866c. Or measuring the wavelength of light at the source
>>>> of a moving star and the redshifted frequency of the light reaching
>>>> earth, multiplying them and concluding that light moved at less than c.
>>>> (Ken Seto's mistake, one of many)
>>>>>
>>>>> "The first postulate of special relativity states that the laws of physics and electromagnetism are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This implies that the experiments performed in stationary and moving inertial frames yield the same results."
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to
>>>>>> analyze the problem in one frame or the other, not bits from each frame.
>>>>>> And since you are invoking the gravitation of the sun on earth, you need
>>>>>> to use GR in your calculations (SR assumes no or insignificant gravity).
>>>>> There are no GR calculations, no amount of Tensor multiplication that can keep the earth from spiraling into the sun. Prove me wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you have been told REPEATEDLY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
>>>>>> Because you're frame jumping.
>>>
>>> Volroney, you and Tom Roberts will never falsify the BBP
>> I just showed you what was wrong with your claim.
>>
>> So did Tom. Repeatedly.
>>> unless and until you show the forum (and all the other forums in which the BBP now stands sentinel) the specific GR calculations that conclusively demonstrate that the distance the earth remains from the sun is constant in all inertial frames.
>> It is your claim, it is up to you to demonstrate that. Without frame
>> jumping. See Tom's previous answers as to why your claims are wrong, he
>> can explain it better than I can.
> No, he can't. His claim, with no calculative proof, is that every word of the BBP is false. He has no argument. Only accusation. Accusation without argument. Conclusion with no prior deduction. Removal from the ballot with no judicial finding.
>
I said read his previous answers, meaning his earlier responses to your
mistakes. In his last message he may have been a bit frustrated saying
100% false, while I narrowed it down to your frame-jumping causing the
conclusion to be false. See his responses before his last one. Google
(still) remembers.