Don Lincoln takes down Big Ben Paradox from the Fermilab Youtube channel comments section! I see the fine hand of Tom Roberts in this outrageous act of science cancelation. Didn't Roberts once work at Fermilab? Bring coffee to Lincoln, and stuff like that?

I stole a poster off the wall from Fermilab about 20 years ago.

On 12/31/23 2:00 AM, patdolan wrote:
> Don Lincoln takes down Big Ben Paradox from the Fermilab Youtube
> channel comments section!

Of course. Your "Big Ben Paradox" is merely your personal
MISUNDERSTANDING of Special Relativity.

> I see the fine hand of Tom Roberts in this outrageous act of science
> cancelation.

NONSENSE! You keep posting your fantasies and pretending they are true.
Note the BBP is not science at all, it is just your personal
misunderstanding.

Don Lincoln and I share an understanding of relativity, along with tens
of thousands of other physicists. Nothing more than that is needed to
show your misunderstanding.

Tom Roberts

On Monday 1 January 2024 at 18:01:41 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/31/23 2:00 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > Don Lincoln takes down Big Ben Paradox from the Fermilab Youtube
> > channel comments section!
> Of course. Your "Big Ben Paradox" is merely your personal
> MISUNDERSTANDING of Special Relativity.

And MISUNDERSTANDING, that we're FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!!

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 9:01:41 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/31/23 2:00 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > Don Lincoln takes down Big Ben Paradox from the Fermilab Youtube
> > channel comments section!
> Of course. Your "Big Ben Paradox" is merely your personal
> MISUNDERSTANDING of Special Relativity.
> > I see the fine hand of Tom Roberts in this outrageous act of science
> > cancelation.
> NONSENSE! You keep posting your fantasies and pretending they are true.
> Note the BBP is not science at all, it is just your personal
> misunderstanding.
>
> Don Lincoln and I share an understanding of relativity, along with tens
> of thousands of other physicists. Nothing more than that is needed to
> show your misunderstanding.
>
> Tom Roberts
There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
______________________________________

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 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?

Den 01.01.2024 21:58, skrev patdolan:
> There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> ______________________________________
>
> 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 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?

Because what SR predicts is not a matter of opinion,
it is a matter of fact.

The fact is that your claim of what SR predicts
is proved wrong below:

Problem:
An observer O is racing past Proxima Centauri on her way to Big Ben
at .867c relative to the Big Ben.

Question to answer:
How many rotations will the little hand of Big-Ben make
from the observer O is passing Proxima Centauri to she hits
the Earth?

Let's call Earth's rest frame K(t,x).
We will call the position of the Earth E, and the position of
Proxima Centauri P in this frame.

O->v
K: P-----------------E
0 L
At t = t₀ = 0, the observer O is at P.
At t = t₁ the observer O is at E

L = 4.2 [ly] proper distance Earth - Proxima Centauri in K
v = 0.867c
γ = 2.0068
f₀ = 730.5 [cycles/y], proper frequency of the BB clock.
T = 1/f₀ = 0.001369 [y], proper duration of a cycle

t₁ = L/v = 4.844 y

So the answer to the question above is:
N₀ = f₀⋅t₁ = f₀⋅L/v = 3538.75 cycles
===================================

This is the same as what NM predicts, because we
have not asked what is measured in O's rest frame.
____________________________________________________

The observer's clock is moving in K:
--------------------------------------

Let K'(t',x') be O's rest frame.

There are two events of interest:
E0: The observer is at P
In K: t₀ = 0, x₀ = 0
In K': t₀' = 0, x₀' = 0

E1: The observer is at E
In K: t₁ = L/v = 4.84429 y, x₁ = L = 4.2 ly
In K':
t₁' = γ(t₁-v⋅x₁/c²) = L/γv = 2.41395 y
x₁' = γ(x₁-v⋅t₁) = 0

In K: t₂ = T = 0.001369 y, x₂ = L/v = 2.09289 ly
In K': t₂'= γ(t₂-v⋅x₂/c²) = T/γ = 0.00068215 y

f₀' = γ⋅f₀ = 1465.96 cycles/y , the frequency measured in K'

So SR predicts that O will measure (count):
N₁ = f₀'⋅t₁' = γ⋅f₀⋅L/γv = f₀⋅L/v = 3538.75 cycles
=================================================>

Note this:
The observer's clock advances the proper time:
τ' = t₁'- t₀'= 2.41395 y
while the difference between the coordinate time
t₀ at x₀ and t₁ at x₁ changes by:
(t₁ - t₀) = L/v = 4.84429 y.

The observer's moving clock appears to run slow as measured in K.
________________________________________________________________

Big Ben is moving in K':
-------------------------

t₄' = 0
O
P-----------E
0 x₄'

At Event E₄ is E at x₄' when t₄' = 0

We know that E always is at x = L in K
t₄' = γ(t₄-v⋅L/c²) = 0 => t₄ = v⋅L/c² = 3.6414 y
x₄' = γ(x₄-v⋅t₄) = γ(L-L(v²/c²)) = L/γ = 2.09289 ly

So measured in K' at the time t' = 0, E is at the position L/γ
and BB is showing the proper time τ₄ = v⋅L/c² = 3.6414 y

At Event E1, when E is at P, we have from above:
BB is showing the the proper time τ₁ = t₁ = L/v = 4.84429 y

We still have:
f₀' = γ⋅f₀ = 1465.96 cycles/y , the frequency measured in K'
t₁' = L/γv = 2.41395 y

So SR predicts that O will measure (count):
N₁ = f₀'⋅t₁' = γ⋅f₀⋅L/γv = f₀⋅L/v = 3538.75 cycles
=================================================>

Note this:
Big Ben advances the proper time:
(τ₁-τ₄) = L/v-v⋅L/c² = (L/v)(1-v²/c²) = L/γ²v = 1.20289 y
while the difference between the coordinate time t₄' at x₄'
and t₁' at x₁' changes by:
(t₁' - t₄') = L/γv = 2.41395 y

The moving Big Ben appears to run slow as measured in K'.
_________________________________________________________________

Calculation with Doppler shift.

O-v
P-----------------E
0 L

Since O is approaching the Earth, he will measure
(see above) the frequency of BB to be f₀' = γ⋅f₀.

He will visually observe this frequency to Doppler shifted:
f = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))f₀' = f₀/(1-v/c)

He will observe this frequency for the time L/v.
But when he is at P, he will see the light emitted from BB
at a time L/c before he arrived at P, so he must subtract
the counts he received the first time L/c.
That means that he must count the cycles received during
the time Δt = L/v - L/c = (L/v)(1-v/c)

The number of counts emitted from BB during this time is:
N = f⋅Δt = (f₀/(1-v/c))(L/v)(1-v/c) = f₀⋅L/v = 3538.75 cycles
==============================================================

Keep ignoring that you are proved wrong,
and I will keep reminding you.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 09:37:24 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.01.2024 21:58, skrev patdolan:
> > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> > ______________________________________
> >
> > 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 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?
> Because what SR predicts is not a matter of opinion,
> it is a matter of fact.

Sure, and t's the fact that the predictions
of The Shit are denying each other.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 1:06:05 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 09:37:24 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 01.01.2024 21:58, skrev patdolan:
> > > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics.. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> > > ______________________________________
> > >
> > > 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 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?
> > Because what SR predicts is not a matter of opinion,
> > it is a matter of fact.
> Sure, and t's the fact that the predictions
> of The Shit are denying each other.
I couldn't have put it better myself.

On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:

> There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.

Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
it shot down again.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 9:46:38 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
> count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
> it shot down again.

Shoot it down just one more time, Volroney. I dare you.

Now why do I know with absolute certitude that you won't attempt your own shoot-down? Because contrary to your claim, no one has ever shot down the BBP. Not on any physics social platform. The the only response the BBP has ever received from relativists of all levels and qualifications is either 1) closing down all further comment, or 2) taking it down off the platform as the Great Don Lincoln just did.

With this level of response, nay, systemic immune response to the BBP why would I be enthused to continue to trumpet and spread what has obviously become the greatest argument against SR since the Ehrenfest paradox and the greatest falsification of GR since the William Wallace Campbell and the 1919 eclipse. Both birds fallen to the ground.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 9:46:38 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
> count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
> it shot down again.

Shoot it down just one more time, Volroney. I dare you.

Now how do I know with absolute certitude that you won't attempt your own shoot-down? Because contrary to your claim, no one has ever shot down the BBP--not on any physics social platform. Not a single time. The only response the BBP has ever received from relativists of all levels and qualifications is either 1) closing down all further comment, or 2) taking it down off the platform as the Great Don Lincoln and Fermilab just did.

With this sort of response, nay, systemic immune response to the BBP by the entire physics community, professional and amateur, why wouldn't I enthusiastically continue to trumpet and spread what has obviously become the greatest argument against SR since the Ehrenfest paradox; and the greatest falsification of GR since William Wallace Campbell and the 1919 eclipse. Both birds taken down with a single shot!

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:46:38 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
> count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
> it shot down again.

And still the mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent, in another point, and the only
thing you or your fellow idiots can do about the
proof is casting insults.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 9:46:38 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> >
> > > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics.. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> > Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
> > count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
> > it shot down again.
> Shoot it down just one more time, Volroney. I dare you.
>
> Now how do I know with absolute certitude that you won't attempt your own shoot-down? Because contrary to your claim, no one has ever shot down the BBP--not on any physics social platform. Not a single time. The only response the BBP has ever received from relativists of all levels and qualifications is either 1) closing down all further comment, or 2) taking it down off the platform as the Great Don Lincoln and Fermilab just did.
>
> With this sort of response, nay, systemic immune response to the BBP by the entire physics community, professional and amateur, why wouldn't I enthusiastically continue to trumpet and spread what has obviously become the greatest argument against SR since the Ehrenfest paradox; and the greatest falsification of GR since William Wallace Campbell and the 1919 eclipse. Both birds taken down with a single shot!

Further more, I declare that there exists no person such that said person can offer actual calculations containing Arabic numerals that prove or demonstrate that the earth will remain in stable orbit around the sun; all such persons can do is offer words that merely express their hopes that the earth will remain in orbit--that is all they can do. But they cannot and will not offer proof.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 12:07:40 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 9:46:38 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > > On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > >
> > > > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> > > Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
> > > count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
> > > it shot down again.
> > Shoot it down just one more time, Volroney. I dare you.
> >
> > Now how do I know with absolute certitude that you won't attempt your own shoot-down? Because contrary to your claim, no one has ever shot down the BBP--not on any physics social platform. Not a single time. The only response the BBP has ever received from relativists of all levels and qualifications is either 1) closing down all further comment, or 2) taking it down off the platform as the Great Don Lincoln and Fermilab just did.
> >
> > With this sort of response, nay, systemic immune response to the BBP by the entire physics community, professional and amateur, why wouldn't I enthusiastically continue to trumpet and spread what has obviously become the greatest argument against SR since the Ehrenfest paradox; and the greatest falsification of GR since William Wallace Campbell and the 1919 eclipse. Both birds taken down with a single shot!
> Further more, I declare that there exists no person such that said person can offer actual calculations containing Arabic numerals that prove or demonstrate that the earth will remain in stable orbit around the sun; all such persons can do is offer words that merely express their hopes that the earth will remain in orbit--that is all they can do. But they cannot and will not offer proof.

( ( ( ( crickets ) ) ) ) just as I predicted, promised, swore too and averred.

But it now looks as though Reddit has seen the error of their ways and has sent a supplication to resubmit the BBP on their r/AskPhysics group, which I have done and will keep this forum informed as to their response. Reddit now appears to understand what the stakes are for Relativity. And that the entire Relativity project hangs on the solution of the BBP.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:30:51 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 12:07:40 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 9:46:38 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> > > > Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
> > > > count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
> > > > it shot down again.
> > > Shoot it down just one more time, Volroney. I dare you.
> > >
> > > Now how do I know with absolute certitude that you won't attempt your own shoot-down? Because contrary to your claim, no one has ever shot down the BBP--not on any physics social platform. Not a single time. The only response the BBP has ever received from relativists of all levels and qualifications is either 1) closing down all further comment, or 2) taking it down off the platform as the Great Don Lincoln and Fermilab just did.
> > >
> > > With this sort of response, nay, systemic immune response to the BBP by the entire physics community, professional and amateur, why wouldn't I enthusiastically continue to trumpet and spread what has obviously become the greatest argument against SR since the Ehrenfest paradox; and the greatest falsification of GR since William Wallace Campbell and the 1919 eclipse. Both birds taken down with a single shot!
> > Further more, I declare that there exists no person such that said person can offer actual calculations containing Arabic numerals that prove or demonstrate that the earth will remain in stable orbit around the sun; all such persons can do is offer words that merely express their hopes that the earth will remain in orbit--that is all they can do. But they cannot and will not offer proof.
> ( ( ( ( crickets ) ) ) ) just as I predicted, promised, swore too and averred.
>
> But it now looks as though Reddit has seen the error of their ways and has sent a supplication to resubmit the BBP on their r/AskPhysics group, which I have done and will keep this forum informed as to their response. Reddit now appears to understand what the stakes are for Relativity. And that the entire Relativity project hangs on the solution of the BBP.

Over 200 views after 30 minutes. 50% upvote rate. The community karma rating is already at -16. But not a single comment yet. The hornets nest has been kicked.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:44:18 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:30:51 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 12:07:40 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 9:46:38 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 1/1/2024 3:58 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one. The only counter response has been, and will continue to be, taking it down off the platform or closing it to all further discussion. That is the only response imaginable by its critics. No other theory in the entire history of science has been met with this treatment. This attests to the BBP's everlasting potency to destroy SR and GR in one swell scoop.
> > > > > Your supposed "BBP" has been shot down in flames more times than I can
> > > > > count. You ignore that and parade it forth again and again just to have
> > > > > it shot down again.
> > > > Shoot it down just one more time, Volroney. I dare you.
> > > >
> > > > Now how do I know with absolute certitude that you won't attempt your own shoot-down? Because contrary to your claim, no one has ever shot down the BBP--not on any physics social platform. Not a single time. The only response the BBP has ever received from relativists of all levels and qualifications is either 1) closing down all further comment, or 2) taking it down off the platform as the Great Don Lincoln and Fermilab just did.
> > > >
> > > > With this sort of response, nay, systemic immune response to the BBP by the entire physics community, professional and amateur, why wouldn't I enthusiastically continue to trumpet and spread what has obviously become the greatest argument against SR since the Ehrenfest paradox; and the greatest falsification of GR since William Wallace Campbell and the 1919 eclipse.. Both birds taken down with a single shot!
> > > Further more, I declare that there exists no person such that said person can offer actual calculations containing Arabic numerals that prove or demonstrate that the earth will remain in stable orbit around the sun; all such persons can do is offer words that merely express their hopes that the earth will remain in orbit--that is all they can do. But they cannot and will not offer proof.
> > ( ( ( ( crickets ) ) ) ) just as I predicted, promised, swore too and averred.
> >
> > But it now looks as though Reddit has seen the error of their ways and has sent a supplication to resubmit the BBP on their r/AskPhysics group, which I have done and will keep this forum informed as to their response. Reddit now appears to understand what the stakes are for Relativity. And that the entire Relativity project hangs on the solution of the BBP.
> Over 200 views after 30 minutes. 50% upvote rate. The community karma rating is already at -16. But not a single comment yet. The hornets nest has been kicked.

2.7k views and -42 community karma points later, my BBP Reddit post is the hottest thing on line today. Eat your hearts out Dirk Vdm and Tom Roberts. You too Python.

> > Over 200 views after 30 minutes. 50% upvote rate. The community karma rating is already at -16. But not a single comment yet. The hornets nest has been kicked.
> 2.7k views and -42 community karma points later, my BBP Reddit post is the hottest thing on line today. Eat your hearts out Dirk Vdm and Tom Roberts. You too Python.

I forgot the link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/18xpmpu/the_big_ben_paradox/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

And just like here, not a single equation to prove me wrong.

patdolan wrote:

> There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one.

It has been suggested on several of the other forums where you have attempted to pedal this drivel that rather than having others perform the calculations to refute your claim, it would be more appropriate for *you*
to provide the calculations that actually support your claim!

What a novel thought! It sure seems reasonable to me that the guy who makes the extraordinary claim should also provide the evidence in support of that claim... otherwise, it might seem to some folks that you are simply flapping your lips for the sole purpose of listening to yourself speak!

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
>
> > There has never been a mathematical calculation offered on any platform to refute the BBP. Not a single one.
> It has been suggested on several of the other forums where you have attempted to pedal this drivel that rather than having others perform the calculations to refute your claim, it would be more appropriate for *you*
> to provide the calculations that actually support your claim!
>
> What a novel thought! It sure seems reasonable to me that the guy who makes the extraordinary claim should also provide the evidence in support of that claim... otherwise, it might seem to some folks that you are simply flapping your lips for the sole purpose of listening to yourself speak!

I proffer as my proof Newton's law of gravitation from which we derive the formula for stable orbit

v = sqrt[ GM/r ]

While this is not based on the Schwarzschild metric, we can nevertheless take it as accurate enough in the non-relativistic limit for both M and v. We also know from the first postulate that all laws of orbital mechanics, such as Kepler's and Newton's, take the same form in all inertial frames.

The above equation for orbital velocity returns a value twice the value returned in the BBP.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

No, Dear Muttonchops, the onus of proof lies with the BBP gainsayers who must prove that GR decreases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the sun by a factor of 1/gamma.

On 1/3/2024 8:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
>
>>> Over 200 views after 30 minutes. 50% upvote rate. The community karma rating is already at -16. But not a single comment yet. The hornets nest has been kicked.
>> 2.7k views and -42 community karma points later, my BBP Reddit post is the hottest thing on line today. Eat your hearts out Dirk Vdm and Tom Roberts. You too Python.
>
> I forgot the link:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/18xpmpu/the_big_ben_paradox/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
>
> And just like here, not a single equation to prove me wrong.
>
I noticed that at least one response there pointed out your
frameshifting, just as I did here.

Volney wrote:
>
> Pat Dolan wrote:
> >
> > And just like here, not a single equation to prove me wrong.

I noticed that at least one response there pointed out your
frameshifting, just as I did here.

Yep. Frame-shifting is often at fault for many misconceptions about
relativity.

> > I proffer as my proof Newton's law of gravitation from which we derive the
> > formula for stable orbit
> >
> > v = sqrt[ GM/r ]
> >
> > While this is not based on the Schwarzschild metric, we can nevertheless
> > take it as accurate enough in the non-relativistic limit for both M and v.

Nope. You have the relative velocity between object and observer as 0.867c.
Definitely out of the domain of Newton.

> > We also know from the first postulate that all laws of orbital mechanics,
> > such as Kepler's and Newton's, take the same form in all inertial frames.

But the laws are SR and GR, not Newtons's.

> > The above equation for orbital velocity returns a value twice the value
> > returned in the BBP.

What "above equation?? The only equation you've shown is v = sqrt(Gm/r). Is
that twice what YOU show?

Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten that Weber's approximate equation (good
up to v/c small) points to the solution to the "BBP"?