On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 6:54:11 PM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 3:36:19 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Why is it so difficult for you to tell me what the distance is between the traveler and
> > the mirror as measured by the traveler?
> It isn't difficult, it's irrelevant... and it isn't a single value, but rather a continuous sequence of values as the traveler moves around the circle, and, of all those infinitely many values, exactly zero of them are relevant to the determination of the speed of the pulse. Do you understand this?
> > F0 and F1 measure the distance as 15*10**12 meters.
> No, as always, you are mistaken. This was explained in each of the previous posts. Once again, to determine the speed of the pulse, the relevant distance is between the emission event and the reception event, and in terms of F1 the mirror is moving at high speed and it has changed its position from the emission to reception, so the distance in terms of F0 is h and the distance in terms of F1 is gh. You keep saying the distance that the pulse travels is the same in terms of these two coordinate systems, but it is clearly not. The values of h and gh are not the same. Understand?
> > Can't you explain what the traveler measures that distance to be?
> Ah, you see, now you've asked a different question. Up above you were asking for the distance between the traveler and the mirror as the traveler moves around the circle (which is totally irrelevant), but now you are asking for the distance from emission to reception in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest. The answer to that has already been given a dozen times: The distance and time of the pulse's journey is different in terms of each of the inertial coordinate systems in which the traveler is successively at rest, but the ratio of distance over time is always 1 in each of those systems. For example, when the traveler begins at (0,0,R,0) the distance to be traversed by the pulse in terms of the traveler's rest frame is gh, as is the time the pulse will take. Now do you understand?

You post about the distance the light travels when I ask about the distance between the plane of the circumference and the mirror. Both F0 and F1 agree that the distance between the circle and the mirror are 50,000 light-seconds. What does the moving traveler measure as the distance between the circle and the mirror? Why can't you answer that question?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 7:23:26 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You post about the distance the light travels...

Right, that's the relevant distance which, divided by the duration of the transit, equals the speed of the light. Your claim is (or at least was) that the speed of light is not 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest (as some moment), and we've seen here that your claim is false. Understand?

> I ask about the distance between the plane of the circumference and the mirror.

Right, that's an irrelevant distance, although it happens to be the distance that the pulse travels in terms of F0, i.e., h.

> Both F0 and F1 agree that the distance between the circle and the mirror are
> 50,000 light-seconds.

No, the circle and the mirror are stationary in terms of F0 so the times of emission and reception don't matter, but in terms of F1 (and all the other frames) the circle and the mirror are in motion, and there is a time lag between the emission and the reception, and in that lag period the mirror has moved, so the distance that the light travels in terms of F1 is not h, it is actually hg. Also, the duration of transit in terms of F1is hg, so the speed of the pulse in terms of F1 is 1. Likewise the speed of the pulse in terms of every other inertial frame is 1. Only for F0 is h the relevant distance that the pulse travels.

> What does the moving traveler measure as the distance between the circle and the mirror?

The distance between the emission event on the circle and the reception event at the mirror is hg in terms of the traveler's inertial rest frame at the initial moment. After that the traveler is at rest in terms of other inertial frames, and the distance and duration of flight for the pulse varies, but for each of those systems the ratio of distance to duration of flight is 1. Understand?

> Why can't you answer that question?

I have answered that question a dozen times now. Again, the answer for F1 (for example) is hg. Remember I told you that this would continue to be the answer, no matter how many times you asked? Sure enough, it is still the answer: hg. Do you understand now?

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 9:41:04 PM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 7:23:26 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > You post about the distance the light travels...
>
> Right, that's the relevant distance which, divided by the duration of the transit, equals the speed of the light. Your claim is (or at least was) that the speed of light is not 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest (as some moment), and we've seen here that your claim is false. Understand?
> > I ask about the distance between the plane of the circumference and the mirror.
> Right, that's an irrelevant distance, although it happens to be the distance that the pulse travels in terms of F0, i.e., h.
> > Both F0 and F1 agree that the distance between the circle and the mirror are
> > 50,000 light-seconds.
> No, the circle and the mirror are stationary in terms of F0 so the times of emission and reception don't matter, but in terms of F1 (and all the other frames) the circle and the mirror are in motion, and there is a time lag between the emission and the reception, and in that lag period the mirror has moved, so the distance that the light travels in terms of F1 is not h, it is actually hg. Also, the duration of transit in terms of F1is hg, so the speed of the pulse in terms of F1 is 1. Likewise the speed of the pulse in terms of every other inertial frame is 1. Only for F0 is h the relevant distance that the pulse travels.
> > What does the moving traveler measure as the distance between the circle and the mirror?
> The distance between the emission event on the circle and the reception event at the mirror is hg in terms of the traveler's inertial rest frame at the initial moment. After that the traveler is at rest in terms of other inertial frames, and the distance and duration of flight for the pulse varies, but for each of those systems the ratio of distance to duration of flight is 1. Understand?
> > Why can't you answer that question?
> I have answered that question a dozen times now. Again, the answer for F1 (for example) is hg. Remember I told you that this would continue to be the answer, no matter how many times you asked? Sure enough, it is still the answer: hg. Do you understand now?

In reply to my post of:
> Both F0 and F1 agree that the distance between the circle and the mirror are
> 50,000 light-seconds.
You stated, "No"
You are confusing the distance the light pulse travels with the distance between mirror and the circle. The mirror is positioned perpendicular to the x-y axis so both F0 and F1 measure that distance to be 50,000*3*10**8 meters (where I used 3*10**8 meters per second as the speed of light). Now try to answer my question, what is the distance between the mirror and the circle as measured by the traveler as he goes around the circle. I am not asking you about the distance a pulse of light travels. I am asking what the traveler measures as the distance between two objects, one the circumference of the circle he's traveling on and the other the mirror.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

sepp623@yahoo.com <sepp623@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 9:41:04 PM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 7:23:26 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> You post about the distance the light travels...
>>
>> Right, that's the relevant distance which, divided by the duration of
>> the transit, equals the speed of the light. Your claim is (or at least
>> was) that the speed of light is not 1 in terms of the inertial
>> coordinates in which the traveler is at rest (as some moment), and we've
>> seen here that your claim is false. Understand?
>>> I ask about the distance between the plane of the circumference and the mirror.
>> Right, that's an irrelevant distance, although it happens to be the
>> distance that the pulse travels in terms of F0, i.e., h.
>>> Both F0 and F1 agree that the distance between the circle and the mirror are
>>> 50,000 light-seconds.
>> No, the circle and the mirror are stationary in terms of F0 so the times
>> of emission and reception don't matter, but in terms of F1 (and all the
>> other frames) the circle and the mirror are in motion, and there is a
>> time lag between the emission and the reception, and in that lag period
>> the mirror has moved, so the distance that the light travels in terms of
>> F1 is not h, it is actually hg. Also, the duration of transit in terms
>> of F1is hg, so the speed of the pulse in terms of F1 is 1. Likewise the
>> speed of the pulse in terms of every other inertial frame is 1. Only for
>> F0 is h the relevant distance that the pulse travels.
>>> What does the moving traveler measure as the distance between the circle and the mirror?
>> The distance between the emission event on the circle and the reception
>> event at the mirror is hg in terms of the traveler's inertial rest frame
>> at the initial moment. After that the traveler is at rest in terms of
>> other inertial frames, and the distance and duration of flight for the
>> pulse varies, but for each of those systems the ratio of distance to
>> duration of flight is 1. Understand?
>>> Why can't you answer that question?
>> I have answered that question a dozen times now. Again, the answer for
>> F1 (for example) is hg. Remember I told you that this would continue to
>> be the answer, no matter how many times you asked? Sure enough, it is
>> still the answer: hg. Do you understand now?
>
> In reply to my post of:
>> Both F0 and F1 agree that the distance between the circle and the mirror are
>> 50,000 light-seconds.
> You stated, "No"
> You are confusing the distance the light pulse travels with the distance
> between mirror and the circle. The mirror is positioned perpendicular to
> the x-y axis so both F0 and F1 measure that distance to be 50,000*3*10**8
> meters (where I used 3*10**8 meters per second as the speed of light).
> Now try to answer my question, what is the distance between the mirror
> and the circle as measured by the traveler as he goes around the circle.
> I am not asking you about the distance a pulse of light travels. I am
> asking what the traveler measures as the distance between two objects,
> one the circumference of the circle he's traveling on and the other the mirror.
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX
>

David you are wrestling with a very old problem that is dealt with in
countless textbooks: if the radius is unchanged for someone traveling
tangentially on a circle but the circumference has changed because if
relativity, then does this mean that pi (ratio of circumference to
diameter) has changed? Have you bothered looking in all those textbooks on
relativity for the answer to your question?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 5:50:10 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You are confusing the distance the light pulse travels with the distance between
> mirror and the circle.

No, you are failing to grasp the elementary fact that the pulse travels from the circle to the mirror, but it arrives at the mirror at a different time than it departed from the circle, and in that period of time the mirror has moved (in terms of every frame except F0), so the distance traveled by the light is indeed the distance between the circle and the mirror, but at different times, which accounts for the different distances that the pulse has traveled in terms of different systems of coordinates.

Remember, your claim is that the speed of the pulse is not 1 in terms of some system of inertial coordinates, and to show this you need to identify a system of inertial coordinates in terms of which the speed of light is not 1. But in every such system we've shown that the speed (distance traveled divided by duration) is 1. So your claim was false. Now do you understand?

> I am not asking you about the distance a pulse of light travels. I am asking what
> the traveler measures as the distance between two objects...

Again, the distance between the two objects *is* the distance that the light travels, because it travels from one object to the other. The point is, the relevant distance for determining the speed is the distance between the source object at the moment of departure and the destination object at the moment of arrival. Every school child of at least average intelligence understands this. What you are asking is a different (and completely irrelevant) question, namely, what is the distance between the objects at the moment of departure in terms of various frames. Do you understand now why that distance is not relevant to the determination of the speed of the light, and why the relevant distance is the distance the light has traveled?

Let's try this: Do you agree that the speed of the pulse in terms of any given system of inertial coordinates is the distance the pulse has traveled divided by the duration, both in terms of that given system?

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 6:03:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> David you are wrestling with a very old problem that is dealt with in
> countless textbooks: if the radius is unchanged for someone traveling
> tangentially on a circle but the circumference has changed because if
> relativity, then does this mean that pi (ratio of circumference to
> diameter) has changed? Have you bothered looking in all those textbooks on
> relativity for the answer to your question?

No, that isn't his question. The pulse of light is going perpendicular to the circle, and he is not asking about the distance traveled around the circle. In a different thread someone else has been asking about what you are referring to, but that is not what's being discussed here.

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 8:09:41 AM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 5:50:10 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > You are confusing the distance the light pulse travels with the distance between
> > mirror and the circle.
> No, you are failing to grasp the elementary fact that the pulse travels from the circle to the mirror, but it arrives at the mirror at a different time than it departed from the circle, and in that period of time the mirror has moved (in terms of every frame except F0), so the distance traveled by the light is indeed the distance between the circle and the mirror, but at different times, which accounts for the different distances that the pulse has traveled in terms of different systems of coordinates.
>
> Remember, your claim is that the speed of the pulse is not 1 in terms of some system of inertial coordinates, and to show this you need to identify a system of inertial coordinates in terms of which the speed of light is not 1. But in every such system we've shown that the speed (distance traveled divided by duration) is 1. So your claim was false. Now do you understand?
> > I am not asking you about the distance a pulse of light travels. I am asking what
> > the traveler measures as the distance between two objects...
>
> Again, the distance between the two objects *is* the distance that the light travels, because it travels from one object to the other. The point is, the relevant distance for determining the speed is the distance between the source object at the moment of departure and the destination object at the moment of arrival. Every school child of at least average intelligence understands this. What you are asking is a different (and completely irrelevant) question, namely, what is the distance between the objects at the moment of departure in terms of various frames. Do you understand now why that distance is not relevant to the determination of the speed of the light, and why the relevant distance is the distance the light has traveled?
>
> Let's try this: Do you agree that the speed of the pulse in terms of any given system of inertial coordinates is the distance the pulse has traveled divided by the duration, both in terms of that given system?
Your two comments don't add up. You say the speed of the pulse is the distance the pulse has traveled divided by the duration, and you also say that the distance is the distance light travels. So you are saying there is no method for determining distance.
If the mirror in F0 is a very large plane 10 meters above the circle, and the traveler has a rod of proper length 10 meters long that he keeps perpendicular to the x-y plane he is traveling in, you somehow seem to be saying that he cannot determine that the rod's length is equal to the mirror's distance from the circle. It seems to me if there were no light pulses, he could leave marks on the mirror with the rod only if the distance between the circle and the mirror were 10 meters. If the rod was less than 10 meters in length, no marks could be made. Why do you say light pulses have to be used to determine length?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 4:14:48 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You say the speed of the pulse is the distance the pulse has traveled divided
> by the duration...

Right, and it isn't just me who says that, it is every sane human being throughout history, because that what the speed of an object means.

> you also say that the distance is the distance light travels.

Again, the speed of an object (any object, not just pulses of light) over any linear segment in terms of a specified system of inertial coordinates is, by definition, the spatial distance traveled divided by the duration of the transit. Every sane person knows this. This is what the word "speed" means.

> So you are saying there is no method for determining distance.

Nope. Every sane person understands that, in any given inertial frame, we can measure distance using standard rulers at rest in that frame to determine the distance in terms of inertial coordinates of that frame.

> If the mirror in [you mean at rest in] F0 is a very large plane 10 meters above the circle,
> and the traveler has a rod of proper length 10 meters long that he keeps perpendicular
> to the x-y plane he is traveling in, you somehow seem to be saying that he cannot determine
> that the rod's length is equal to the mirror's distance from the circle.

You are free to hypothesize a mirror that is 1billion light years wide, but the only time and place that matters is the time and place of the reflection, at which the pulse strikes the mirror. In terms of F1, the spatial distance between the emission event of the pulse and the event at which it strikes the mirror is not h, it is hg. This has been explained to you repeated and explicitly.

Consider two trucks heading eastbound on the highway at 60 mph, separated by 1 mile. You are coming up from behind at 61 mph, and you pass the trailing truck first, and then one hour later you pass the leading truck. What is the distance between the trucks, and how far did you drive when going from one truck to the other, and what is your speed? Well, in the frame in which the trucks are at rest, you moved only one mile in that one hour, and your speed is 1 mph. But in the frame of the road you moved 61 miles during that hour, and your speed is 61 mph. How can you have moved 61 miles when going from one truck to the other if they are only 1 mile apart!? You see, it doesn't matter how far apart the trucks are, what matters is how far apart the passing events are. Understand?

> It seems to me if there were no light pulses, he could leave marks on the mirror
> with the rod only if the distance between the circle and the mirror were 10 meters.

You're forgetting that the meaning of the word "speed" of an object for a linear segment in terms of a given system of inertial coordinates is the distance traveled by the object divided by the duration of the transit, all in terms of those coordinates. For example, the simultaneous distance between the trucks in terms of a given system is not the relevant distance, because what you need is the distance you traveled going from one truck to the other (which, in the road frame, is 61 miles). Understand?

> If the rod was less than 10 meters in length, no marks could be made. Why do you
> say light pulses have to be used to determine length?

I do not, nor have I ever, said any such thing. Your brain is malfunctioning rather severely. Your confusion really has nothing to do with special relativity. You are failing to grasp the most rudimentary kinematic facts of everyday existence. Note that your confusion has nothing in particular to do with light. These simple kinematic facts apply to every oject. The speed of an object going straight from object A to object B in terms of a given system of inertial coordinates is the distance between the position of A at the departure event and the position of B at the arrival event, divided by the duration of transit, all in terms of the specified coordinate system. Are you honestly incapable of grasping this? Honestly?

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 7:22:50 PM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 4:14:48 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > You say the speed of the pulse is the distance the pulse has traveled divided
> > by the duration...
>
> Right, and it isn't just me who says that, it is every sane human being throughout history, because that what the speed of an object means.
> > you also say that the distance is the distance light travels.
> Again, the speed of an object (any object, not just pulses of light) over any linear segment in terms of a specified system of inertial coordinates is, by definition, the spatial distance traveled divided by the duration of the transit. Every sane person knows this. This is what the word "speed" means.
> > So you are saying there is no method for determining distance.
> Nope. Every sane person understands that, in any given inertial frame, we can measure distance using standard rulers at rest in that frame to determine the distance in terms of inertial coordinates of that frame.
>
> > If the mirror in [you mean at rest in] F0 is a very large plane 10 meters above the circle,
> > and the traveler has a rod of proper length 10 meters long that he keeps perpendicular
> > to the x-y plane he is traveling in, you somehow seem to be saying that he cannot determine
> > that the rod's length is equal to the mirror's distance from the circle..
> You are free to hypothesize a mirror that is 1billion light years wide, but the only time and place that matters is the time and place of the reflection, at which the pulse strikes the mirror. In terms of F1, the spatial distance between the emission event of the pulse and the event at which it strikes the mirror is not h, it is hg. This has been explained to you repeated and explicitly.
>
> Consider two trucks heading eastbound on the highway at 60 mph, separated by 1 mile. You are coming up from behind at 61 mph, and you pass the trailing truck first, and then one hour later you pass the leading truck. What is the distance between the trucks, and how far did you drive when going from one truck to the other, and what is your speed? Well, in the frame in which the trucks are at rest, you moved only one mile in that one hour, and your speed is 1 mph. But in the frame of the road you moved 61 miles during that hour, and your speed is 61 mph. How can you have moved 61 miles when going from one truck to the other if they are only 1 mile apart!? You see, it doesn't matter how far apart the trucks are, what matters is how far apart the passing events are. Understand?
> > It seems to me if there were no light pulses, he could leave marks on the mirror
> > with the rod only if the distance between the circle and the mirror were 10 meters.
> You're forgetting that the meaning of the word "speed" of an object for a linear segment in terms of a given system of inertial coordinates is the distance traveled by the object divided by the duration of the transit, all in terms of those coordinates. For example, the simultaneous distance between the trucks in terms of a given system is not the relevant distance, because what you need is the distance you traveled going from one truck to the other (which, in the road frame, is 61 miles). Understand?
> > If the rod was less than 10 meters in length, no marks could be made. Why do you
> > say light pulses have to be used to determine length?
> I do not, nor have I ever, said any such thing. Your brain is malfunctioning rather severely. Your confusion really has nothing to do with special relativity. You are failing to grasp the most rudimentary kinematic facts of everyday existence. Note that your confusion has nothing in particular to do with light. These simple kinematic facts apply to every oject. The speed of an object going straight from object A to object B in terms of a given system of inertial coordinates is the distance between the position of A at the departure event and the position of B at the arrival event, divided by the duration of transit, all in terms of the specified coordinate system. Are you honestly incapable of grasping this? Honestly?

Which clock does the traveler use to time the light pulse events in the scenario - the F0 clock, F1 clocks, or his own clock?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 6:38:16 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Which clock does the traveler use to time the light pulse events in the scenario - the F0
> clock, F1 clocks, or his own clock?

Again, anyone can use any clocks they like, and any coordinate system they like, including systems that are inertia based and systems that aren't. However, the subject here is your false claim that the speed of light is not 1 in terms of the inertia-based coordinate system in which the traveler is at rest at any given moment. Hence the relevant clocks are the ones at rest and inertially synchronized in the traveler's inertial rest frame at the given moment. For example, at the start of his journey the traveler is momentarily at rest in F1, and the speed of a pulse of light in terms of F1 is based on the distance and duration in terms of rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in F1.

Likewise at any other moment, when the traveler is momentarily at rest in frame Fn, the speed of the pulse in terms of Fn equals the distance divided by the duration of the pulse's transit, both as measured by standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in Fn. Understand?

On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 15:57:35 UTC+1, Al Coe wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 6:38:16 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Which clock does the traveler use to time the light pulse events in the scenario - the F0
> > clock, F1 clocks, or his own clock?
> Again, anyone can use any clocks they like, and any coordinate system they like, including systems that are inertia based and systems that aren't.

No, poor halfbrain. Anyone can't use your inertia based coordinate system,
as its requirements are ridiculous and making it unusable.

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 8:57:35 AM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 6:38:16 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Which clock does the traveler use to time the light pulse events in the scenario - the F0
> > clock, F1 clocks, or his own clock?
> Again, anyone can use any clocks they like, and any coordinate system they like, including systems that are inertia based and systems that aren't. However, the subject here is your false claim that the speed of light is not 1 in terms of the inertia-based coordinate system in which the traveler is at rest at any given moment. Hence the relevant clocks are the ones at rest and inertially synchronized in the traveler's inertial rest frame at the given moment. For example, at the start of his journey the traveler is momentarily at rest in F1, and the speed of a pulse of light in terms of F1 is based on the distance and duration in terms of rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in F1.
>
> Likewise at any other moment, when the traveler is momentarily at rest in frame Fn, the speed of the pulse in terms of Fn equals the distance divided by the duration of the pulse's transit, both as measured by standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in Fn. Understand?

I have never claimed that the speed of light is not 1 as you repeatedly state.

Let me ask the question that I'm trying to understand another way. The traveler's clock shows 50,000 seconds has elapsed between the sending and receiving of the light pulse while the F1 clocks measure that 200,000 seconds has elapsed. So there is a 4 to 1 difference in the times. So if we change the scenario making the distance huge such that as measured on the traveler's clock it took 10 years and measured by the F1 clocks it took 40 years, if the traveler had a baby with him at the time and point where the pulse was sent, would the kid be 10 years old or 40 years old when the pulse returned?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:22:10 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have never claimed that the speed of light is not 1 as you repeatedly state.

That is untruthful. In your very first post you described your (ridiculously elaborate) scenario, and then in your habitual passive-aggressive manner, concluded by "asking" the rhetorical question: "So how does this traveler measure that the speed of light is no greater than the speed of light measured in F0?" You see, no adult is deceived by you expressing this as a "question". Your entire existence here is devoted to devising a scenario that shows an inconsistency in special relativity. Now, the assertion of special relativity is that the speed is 1 in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, which is the assertion that your question is referring to, and by your elaborate scenario and concluding rhetorical question you are insinuating that this assertion is wrong. Now you deny ever claiming any such thing. That is dishonest. Are you saying now that you agree special relativity is correct?

> Let me ask the question that I'm trying to understand another way. [If], as measured on
> the traveler's clock, it took 10 years, [and] if the traveler had a baby with him ... would
> the kid be 10 years old [when the co-moving clock showed an elapsed time of 10 years]?

So, the question you are trying to understand is whether the elapsed proper time on a standard clock corresponds to the elapsed proper time for a co-moving physical system such as a biological organism? That is the definition of proper time. Duh.

Again, you are being dishonest. This tautological idiocy has nothing to do with the question you asked, which is about the assertion of special relativity that the speed of light is 1 in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates. If your real question is whether 10 equals 10, then, yes, 10 does indeed equal 10. So now do you understand?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> Again, anyone can use any clocks they like, and any coordinate system
>> they like, including systems that are inertia based and systems that
>> aren't.
>
> No, poor halfbrain. Anyone can't use your inertia based coordinate
> system,
> as its requirements are ridiculous and making it unusable.

why did you invade in 2003 the republic of Iraq, and now don't want the
emigrants? Take those people from freezing and give then to Holland.

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:22:10 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I have never claimed that the speed of light is not 1 as you repeatedly state.
> That is untruthful. In your very first post you described your (ridiculously elaborate) scenario, and then in your habitual passive-aggressive manner, concluded by "asking" the rhetorical question: "So how does this traveler measure that the speed of light is no greater than the speed of light measured in F0?" You see, no adult is deceived by you expressing this as a "question". Your entire existence here is devoted to devising a scenario that shows an inconsistency in special relativity. Now, the assertion of special relativity is that the speed is 1 in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, which is the assertion that your question is referring to, and by your elaborate scenario and concluding rhetorical question you are insinuating that this assertion is wrong. Now you deny ever claiming any such thing. That is dishonest. Are you saying now that you agree special relativity is correct?
>
> > Let me ask the question that I'm trying to understand another way. [If], as measured on
> > the traveler's clock, it took 10 years, [and] if the traveler had a baby with him ... would
> > the kid be 10 years old [when the co-moving clock showed an elapsed time of 10 years]?
>
> So, the question you are trying to understand is whether the elapsed proper time on a standard clock corresponds to the elapsed proper time for a co-moving physical system such as a biological organism? That is the definition of proper time. Duh.
>
> Again, you are being dishonest. This tautological idiocy has nothing to do with the question you asked, which is about the assertion of special relativity that the speed of light is 1 in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates. If your real question is whether 10 equals 10, then, yes, 10 does indeed equal 10. So now do you understand?

Well, you are wrong in my assessment. When I asked the question about the speed of light measurement, the traveler's clock showed 50,000 seconds have elapsed. I did not understand how the traveler measures that the distance the light traveled was only 50,000 light-seconds. Your replies basically said the traveler uses the measurements made by observers in F1 instead of his own measurements. You were not able to show me how the traveler measures that the distance the light traveled is no greater than 50,000 light-seconds.. F0 observers say the light traveled 100,000 light-seconds, F1 observers say the light traveled 200,000 light-seconds, but you cannot tell me how the traveler shows that light only traveled 50,000 light-seconds. You haven't answered the question about the traveler's measurements of the distance the light travels.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 9:56:32 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well, you are wrong in my assessment.

Nope, you confirm the correctness of my assessment in the following, where you repeat your idiocies:

> When I asked the question about the speed of light measurement, the traveler's clock
> showed 50,000 seconds have elapsed.

Again, since you are trying to understand how the assertion of special relativity about the speed of light being 1 in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, you need to evaluate the speed of light in terms of inertial coordinates, not the proper time of an accelerating worldline.

> I did not understand how the traveler measures that the distance the light
> traveled was only 50,000 light-seconds.

See above. None of your thoughts coincide to anything correct.

> Your replies basically said the traveler uses the measurements made by
> observers [at rest] in F1 instead of his own measurements.

The traveler *is* at rest in F1 when he is at rest in F1 (at the initial moment of his journey), and so F1 is the system of inertial coordinates in which he is at rest at that moment. Again, when people talking about special relativity sloppily say "as measured by X" they really mean "in terms of inertial coordinates in which X is at rest". Understand?

> You were not able to show me how the traveler measures that the distance the light
> traveled is no greater than 50,000 light-seconds.

Again, none of your thoughts are correct. The assertion that you are trying to understand (or rather, that you have spent decades trying not to understand) is that light propagates in vacuum at speed 1 in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. None of the things you are talking about refer to an inertial coordinate system, so none of them are relevant. Again, what the "traveler measures" at a given moment is just shorthand for "in terms of inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest at that moment". Do you understand why your raving about the elapsed proper time along an accelerating worldline is irrelevant? Any why your expectation of a corresponding pseudo-distance is an absurdity on top of an irrelevancy?

> F0 observers say the light traveled 100,000 light-seconds, F1 observers say
> the light traveled 200,000 light-seconds...

Again, it isn't about what people "say", it's about the facts in terms of specified systems of coordinates.

> but you cannot tell me how the traveler shows that light only traveled 50,000
> light-seconds.

Again, the traveler is a rtest in a sequence of inertial coordinate systems, in each of which the speed of light is 1, and in none of which is the total elapsed proper time of the traveler around the circle relevant, and your insane comments about matching your incorrect concept of the time coordinates with an even more incorrect concept of a corresponding space interval are completely pointless and absurd.

> You haven't answered the question about the traveler's measurements of the distance the light travels.

That is a lie. Again, for each system of inertial coordinates in which the traveler is (sequentially) at rest, the spatial distance traveled by the light pulse equals the duration of flight. For example, at the start of his journey the traveler is at rest in F1, and the distance the light travels in terms of F1 is hg and the duration is also hg, so the speed is 1. Likewise for any other moment along the traveler's path we find the speed in terms of his rest frame coordinates is 1. Naturally we can define other coordinate systems in which the speed is not 1, but those are not relevant to the assertion of special relativity.

Now do you finally understand the fallacies of your attempted reasoning?

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 9:56:32 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 9:43:48 AM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:22:10 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I have never claimed that the speed of light is not 1 as you repeatedly state.
> > That is untruthful. In your very first post you described your (ridiculously elaborate) scenario, and then in your habitual passive-aggressive manner, concluded by "asking" the rhetorical question: "So how does this traveler measure that the speed of light is no greater than the speed of light measured in F0?" You see, no adult is deceived by you expressing this as a "question". Your entire existence here is devoted to devising a scenario that shows an inconsistency in special relativity. Now, the assertion of special relativity is that the speed is 1 in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, which is the assertion that your question is referring to, and by your elaborate scenario and concluding rhetorical question you are insinuating that this assertion is wrong. Now you deny ever claiming any such thing. That is dishonest. Are you saying now that you agree special relativity is correct?
> >
> > > Let me ask the question that I'm trying to understand another way. [If], as measured on
> > > the traveler's clock, it took 10 years, [and] if the traveler had a baby with him ... would
> > > the kid be 10 years old [when the co-moving clock showed an elapsed time of 10 years]?
> >
> > So, the question you are trying to understand is whether the elapsed proper time on a standard clock corresponds to the elapsed proper time for a co-moving physical system such as a biological organism? That is the definition of proper time. Duh.
> >
> > Again, you are being dishonest. This tautological idiocy has nothing to do with the question you asked, which is about the assertion of special relativity that the speed of light is 1 in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates. If your real question is whether 10 equals 10, then, yes, 10 does indeed equal 10. So now do you understand?
> Well, you are wrong in my assessment. When I asked the question about the speed of light measurement, the traveler's clock showed 50,000 seconds have elapsed. I did not understand how the traveler measures that the distance the light traveled was only 50,000 light-seconds. Your replies basically said the traveler uses the measurements made by observers in F1 instead of his own measurements. You were not able to show me how the traveler measures that the distance the light traveled is no greater than 50,000 light-seconds. F0 observers say the light traveled 100,000 light-seconds, F1 observers say the light traveled 200,000 light-seconds, but you cannot tell me how the traveler shows that light only traveled 50,000 light-seconds. You haven't answered the question about the traveler's measurements of the distance the light travels.
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX

The speed of light measurement is a collective light wave average.
Instead of an accuracy...

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:16:57 PM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 9:56:32 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Well, you are wrong in my assessment.
> Nope, you confirm the correctness of my assessment in the following, where you repeat your idiocies:
> > When I asked the question about the speed of light measurement, the traveler's clock
> > showed 50,000 seconds have elapsed.
> Again, since you are trying to understand how the assertion of special relativity about the speed of light being 1 in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, you need to evaluate the speed of light in terms of inertial coordinates, not the proper time of an accelerating worldline.
> > I did not understand how the traveler measures that the distance the light
> > traveled was only 50,000 light-seconds.
> See above. None of your thoughts coincide to anything correct.
> > Your replies basically said the traveler uses the measurements made by
> > observers [at rest] in F1 instead of his own measurements.
>
> The traveler *is* at rest in F1 when he is at rest in F1 (at the initial moment of his journey), and so F1 is the system of inertial coordinates in which he is at rest at that moment. Again, when people talking about special relativity sloppily say "as measured by X" they really mean "in terms of inertial coordinates in which X is at rest". Understand?
> > You were not able to show me how the traveler measures that the distance the light
> > traveled is no greater than 50,000 light-seconds.
> Again, none of your thoughts are correct. The assertion that you are trying to understand (or rather, that you have spent decades trying not to understand) is that light propagates in vacuum at speed 1 in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. None of the things you are talking about refer to an inertial coordinate system, so none of them are relevant. Again, what the "traveler measures" at a given moment is just shorthand for "in terms of inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest at that moment". Do you understand why your raving about the elapsed proper time along an accelerating worldline is irrelevant? Any why your expectation of a corresponding pseudo-distance is an absurdity on top of an irrelevancy?
> > F0 observers say the light traveled 100,000 light-seconds, F1 observers say
> > the light traveled 200,000 light-seconds...
>
> Again, it isn't about what people "say", it's about the facts in terms of specified systems of coordinates.
> > but you cannot tell me how the traveler shows that light only traveled 50,000
> > light-seconds.
> Again, the traveler is a rtest in a sequence of inertial coordinate systems, in each of which the speed of light is 1, and in none of which is the total elapsed proper time of the traveler around the circle relevant, and your insane comments about matching your incorrect concept of the time coordinates with an even more incorrect concept of a corresponding space interval are completely pointless and absurd.
> > You haven't answered the question about the traveler's measurements of the distance the light travels.
> That is a lie. Again, for each system of inertial coordinates in which the traveler is (sequentially) at rest, the spatial distance traveled by the light pulse equals the duration of flight. For example, at the start of his journey the traveler is at rest in F1, and the distance the light travels in terms of F1 is hg and the duration is also hg, so the speed is 1. Likewise for any other moment along the traveler's path we find the speed in terms of his rest frame coordinates is 1. Naturally we can define other coordinate systems in which the speed is not 1, but those are not relevant to the assertion of special relativity.
>
> Now do you finally understand the fallacies of your attempted reasoning?

If there are no other observers and the traveler knows how high above the circumference of the circle the mirror at rest in F0 is, and he has his own clock, do you say he cannot measure the speed of the light pulse?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

sepp623@yahoo.com <sepp623@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:16:57 PM UTC-6, Al Coe wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 9:56:32 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Well, you are wrong in my assessment.
>> Nope, you confirm the correctness of my assessment in the following,
>> where you repeat your idiocies:
>>> When I asked the question about the speed of light measurement, the traveler's clock
>>> showed 50,000 seconds have elapsed.
>> Again, since you are trying to understand how the assertion of special
>> relativity about the speed of light being 1 in terms of every system of
>> inertial coordinates, you need to evaluate the speed of light in terms
>> of inertial coordinates, not the proper time of an accelerating worldline.
>>> I did not understand how the traveler measures that the distance the light
>>> traveled was only 50,000 light-seconds.
>> See above. None of your thoughts coincide to anything correct.
>>> Your replies basically said the traveler uses the measurements made by
>>> observers [at rest] in F1 instead of his own measurements.
>>
>> The traveler *is* at rest in F1 when he is at rest in F1 (at the initial
>> moment of his journey), and so F1 is the system of inertial coordinates
>> in which he is at rest at that moment. Again, when people talking about
>> special relativity sloppily say "as measured by X" they really mean "in
>> terms of inertial coordinates in which X is at rest". Understand?
>>> You were not able to show me how the traveler measures that the distance the light
>>> traveled is no greater than 50,000 light-seconds.
>> Again, none of your thoughts are correct. The assertion that you are
>> trying to understand (or rather, that you have spent decades trying not
>> to understand) is that light propagates in vacuum at speed 1 in terms of
>> every system of inertial coordinates. None of the things you are talking
>> about refer to an inertial coordinate system, so none of them are
>> relevant. Again, what the "traveler measures" at a given moment is just
>> shorthand for "in terms of inertial coordinates in which the traveler is
>> at rest at that moment". Do you understand why your raving about the
>> elapsed proper time along an accelerating worldline is irrelevant? Any
>> why your expectation of a corresponding pseudo-distance is an absurdity
>> on top of an irrelevancy?
>>> F0 observers say the light traveled 100,000 light-seconds, F1 observers say
>>> the light traveled 200,000 light-seconds...
>>
>> Again, it isn't about what people "say", it's about the facts in terms
>> of specified systems of coordinates.
>>> but you cannot tell me how the traveler shows that light only traveled 50,000
>>> light-seconds.
>> Again, the traveler is a rtest in a sequence of inertial coordinate
>> systems, in each of which the speed of light is 1, and in none of which
>> is the total elapsed proper time of the traveler around the circle
>> relevant, and your insane comments about matching your incorrect concept
>> of the time coordinates with an even more incorrect concept of a
>> corresponding space interval are completely pointless and absurd.
>>> You haven't answered the question about the traveler's measurements of
>>> the distance the light travels.
>> That is a lie. Again, for each system of inertial coordinates in which
>> the traveler is (sequentially) at rest, the spatial distance traveled by
>> the light pulse equals the duration of flight. For example, at the start
>> of his journey the traveler is at rest in F1, and the distance the light
>> travels in terms of F1 is hg and the duration is also hg, so the speed
>> is 1. Likewise for any other moment along the traveler's path we find
>> the speed in terms of his rest frame coordinates is 1. Naturally we can
>> define other coordinate systems in which the speed is not 1, but those
>> are not relevant to the assertion of special relativity.
>>
>> Now do you finally understand the fallacies of your attempted reasoning?
>
> If there are no other observers and the traveler knows how high above the
> circumference of the circle the mirror at rest in F0 is, and he has his
> own clock, do you say he cannot measure the speed of the light pulse?
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX
>

An observer in a circular path is not at rest in any inertial reference
frame. The invariance of c applies to measurements conducted in an inertial
reference frame.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 3:34:34 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If there are no other observers...

The presence or absence of observers is irrelevant.

> ...do you say [the traveler] cannot measure the speed of the light pulse?

Anyone can measure the speed of any entity in terms of any specified system of inertial coordinates, matching the results one would get with standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in that system. We covered this before.

The elapsed proper time along an accelerating helical world line is not the time coordinate of any system of inertial coordinates, so it is not relevant to the proposition of special relativity that the speed of light is 1 in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. Understand?

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 4:18:03 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> An observer in a circular path is not at rest in any inertial reference frame.

As noted previously, such a person is always momentarily at rest in an inertial frame, and in each of those, the speed of light is 1. What you meant to say is he is not continuously at rest in any single inertial reference frame, so his integrated proper time around the circle is not a coordinate time of any inertial coordinate system.

> The invariance of c applies to measurements conducted in [terms of] an
> inertial reference frame.

As amended. We can conduct all kinds of measurements while in any state of motion. The invariance of c applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of any inertia-based coordinate system.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 02:02:12 UTC+1, Al Coe wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 4:18:03 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > An observer in a circular path is not at rest in any inertial reference frame.
> As noted previously, such a person is always momentarily at rest in an inertial frame, and in each of those, the speed of light is 1. What you meant to say is he is not continuously at rest in any single inertial reference frame, so his integrated proper time around the circle is not a coordinate time of any inertial coordinate system.
>
> > The invariance of c applies to measurements conducted in [terms of] an
> > inertial reference frame.
>
> As amended. We can conduct all kinds of measurements while in any state of motion. The invariance of c applies to the speed of light expressed in terms of any inertia-based coordinate system.

Any of 0 existing inertia-based coordinate system. Sure.

Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 4:18:03 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> An observer in a circular path is not at rest in any inertial reference frame.
>
> As noted previously, such a person is always momentarily at rest in an inertial frame,

By “at rest in” I meant over any nonzero interval of time, over which an
observer could measure speed by distance covered over elapsed time.

An observer at rest in an inertial reference frame only momentarily, might
be able to make a hypothetical statement about what the speed of light
should be in that momentarily visited frame, but would not be able to
confirm it directly by watching light cover some distance in that frame,
over an interval of time in that frame. Obviously.

> and in each of those, the speed of light is 1. What you meant to say is
> he is not continuously at rest in any single inertial reference frame, so
> his integrated proper time around the circle is not a coordinate time of
> any inertial coordinate system.

I chose simpler terms. You choose “integrated proper time” and “coordinate
time”, which are correct but often not understood by people unread in the
subject. It is a choice made for pedagogical efficacy, which IMO you are
spectacularly bad at, noted previously.

>
>> The invariance of c applies to measurements conducted in [terms of] an
>> inertial reference frame.
>
> As amended. We can conduct all kinds of measurements while in any state
> of motion. The invariance of c applies to the speed of light expressed
> in terms of any inertia-based coordinate system.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:40:47 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> An observer in a circular path is not at rest in any inertial reference frame.
> >
> > As noted previously, such a person is always momentarily at rest in an inertial frame,
> > What you meant to say is he is not continuously at rest in any single inertial reference
>
> By “at rest in” I meant over any nonzero interval of time....

Right, that's what I explained you really meant (see above), but that's not what you said, hence the correction with charitable explanation. This has been carefully explained previously when the OP made the same misstatement, so your misstatement(s) needed to be corrected to avoid backsliding the discussion into that conceptual error.

> over which an observer could measure speed by distance covered
> over elapsed time.

That's another of the OP's misconceptions. The speed of an object in terms of any specified system of coordinates can be empirically determined, regardless of our state of motion. It is not necessary for a person to be at rest in the specified system (in fact, usually we are not at rest in terms of the coordinate systems we use).

> An observer at rest in an inertial reference frame only momentarily, might
> be able to make a hypothetical statement about what the speed of light
> should be in that momentarily visited frame...

See above. You are falling prey to all of the OP's misconceptions. The speed of light being 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest at any given instant is not a "hypothetical statement", it is an objective, empirically verifiable fact. In fact, the speed of light is 1 in terms of those coordinates even is he is never at rest in those coordinates at all, and this too is a verifiable fact. This has nothing to do with "visiting" frames. It's vitally important for the OP and you to understand that vague and sloppy phrases like "as measured by Dave", which actually have no definite meaning (and mislead newbies into thinking your state of motion somehow *forces* you to measure things in terms of a certain basis), are just used as shorthand for "in terms of inertial coordinates in which Dave is at rest".

> I chose simpler terms.

Our terms should be as simple as possible, but no simpler, and we especially should not make statements that echo and reinforce the OP's misconceptions.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 11:40:47 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Al Coe <coea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 4:18:03 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> An observer in a circular path is not at rest in any inertial reference frame.
> >
> > As noted previously, such a person is always momentarily at rest in an inertial frame,
> By “at rest in” I meant over any nonzero interval of time, over which an
> observer could measure speed by distance covered over elapsed time.
>
> An observer at rest in an inertial reference frame only momentarily, might
> be able to make a hypothetical statement about what the speed of light
> should be in that momentarily visited frame, but would not be able to
> confirm it directly by watching light cover some distance in that frame,
> over an interval of time in that frame. Obviously.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.