I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid time-gap
of physicists).
It's depressing.
R.H.
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
That's clearly not Minkowski's diagram (did he have suitable drawing
software in the 19th century?), but someone's interpretation of it. I
hope you're not adopting Thomas Heger's habit of lying about who wrote
what.
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:28:12 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
That's clearly not Minkowski's diagram (did he have suitable drawing
software in the 19th century?), but someone's interpretation of it. I
hope you're not adopting Thomas Heger's habit of lying about who wrote
what.
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid--
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Actually, it might be correct.
Contrary to what Hachel wrote, there
is no "gap." The presumption in the figure is that the velocities
going and returning are constant with an infinite deceleration at
the turning point. Realistically, the deceleration would be finite. Consequently, the simultaneous line would move smoothly from the
point intersecting the vertical line and the upper blue line to a
horizontal line between the turning point and the vertical line
(representing "home"). As the ship began its return journey, the simultaneous line would move up to the lower red line as depicted.
The movement through the gap can be as swift as desired (a particle
in an accelerator encountering a target would have a very fast
deceleration, but still not infinite).
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:28:12 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
That's clearly not Minkowski's diagram (did he have suitable drawing
software in the 19th century?), but someone's interpretation of it. I
hope you're not adopting Thomas Heger's habit of lying about who wrote
what.
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid--
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Actually, it might be correct. Contrary to what Hachel wrote, there
is no "gap." The presumption in the figure is that the velocities
going and returning are constant with an infinite deceleration at
the turning point. Realistically, the deceleration would be finite. Consequently, the simultaneous line would move smoothly from the
point intersecting the vertical line and the upper blue line to a
horizontal line between the turning point and the vertical line
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
That's clearly not Minkowski's diagram (did he have suitable drawing
software in the 19th century?), but someone's interpretation of it. I
hope you're not adopting Thomas Heger's habit of lying about who wrote
what.
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
W dniu 25.09.2024 o 17:34, gharnagel pisze:
Actually, it might be correct. Contrary to what Hachel wrote, there
is no "gap." The presumption in the figure is that the velocities
going and returning are constant with an infinite deceleration at
the turning point. Realistically, the deceleration would be finite. Consequently, the simultaneous line would move smoothly from the
point intersecting the vertical line and the upper blue line to a horizontal line between the turning point and the vertical line
Consequently - The Shit of your idiot guru
provides no consistent concept of simultaneity.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 16:03:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 25.09.2024 o 17:34, gharnagel pisze:
Actually, it might be correct. Contrary to what Hachel wrote, there
is no "gap." The presumption in the figure is that the velocities
going and returning are constant with an infinite deceleration at
the turning point. Realistically, the deceleration would be finite.
Consequently, the simultaneous line would move smoothly from the
point intersecting the vertical line and the upper blue line to a
horizontal line between the turning point and the vertical line
Consequently - The Shit of your idiot guru
provides no consistent concept of simultaneity.
A lie, perpetrated by Wozniak the coprophiliac.
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
That's clearly not Minkowski's diagram (did he have suitable drawing
software in the 19th century?), but someone's interpretation of it. I
hope you're not adopting Thomas Heger's habit of lying about who wrote
what.
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
On 2024-09-25 15:34:35 +0000, gharnagel said:
Actually, it might be correct.
Yes, but it's still not something drawn by Minkovski.
Contrary to what Hachel wrote, there
is no "gap." The presumption in the figure is that the velocities
going and returning are constant with an infinite deceleration at
the turning point. Realistically, the deceleration would be finite. Consequently, the simultaneous line would move smoothly from the
point intersecting the vertical line and the upper blue line to a horizontal line between the turning point and the vertical line (representing "home"). As the ship began its return journey, the simultaneous line would move up to the lower red line as depicted.
The movement through the gap can be as swift as desired (a particle
in an accelerator encountering a target would have a very fast deceleration, but still not infinite).
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
That is a good Minkowski diagram and shows correctly what is intended
and claimed to be shown.
this wasn't my diagram, but looks actually correct.
My own explanation for the so called twin paradox was a bit similar, but based on the idea, that acceleration causes the relativistic effects and
not velocity.
Such a travel would cause a situation, where a spaceship gets
accelerated from - say- Earth, to reach a certain travel velocity to a distant star and a planet there.
Then the spaceship gets decelerated in order to land there.
Then the spaceship starts from there, travels back to Earth and needs to decelerate here.
This requires four instances of acceleration (two positive and two
negative), which should cancel the effect.
...
TH
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:57:46 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-09-25 15:34:35 +0000, gharnagel said:
Actually, it might be correct.
Yes, but it's still not something drawn by Minkovski.
It wasn't drawn by Einstein or Poincare, either. They're all
dead. It is, however, a Minkowski diagram,
and the simultaneity
lines in the prime frame are defined by t = vx/c^2 + Constant
going and negative slope returning, exactly as Minkowski would
have drawn them.
Contrary to what Hachel wrote, there
is no "gap." The presumption in the figure is that the velocities
going and returning are constant with an infinite deceleration at
the turning point. Realistically, the deceleration would be finite.
Consequently, the simultaneous line would move smoothly from the
point intersecting the vertical line and the upper blue line to a
horizontal line between the turning point and the vertical line
(representing "home"). As the ship began its return journey, the
simultaneous line would move up to the lower red line as depicted.
The movement through the gap can be as swift as desired (a particle
in an accelerator encountering a target would have a very fast
deceleration, but still not infinite).
On 2024-09-26 12:44:21 +0000, gharnagel said:
No one sai it wasn't, but "Dr" Hachel's question was "Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?" clearly indicating that he
thinks Minkovski drew it.
It is of course obvious to Hachel (and nobody else)
that nobody could draw a diagram in the 19th century
because of their lack of 'suitable drawing software'
Jan
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:41:39 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
The only other persons that I'm aware of was (1) dono, and his
assertions were clearly false, too, and (2) Athel, who criticized
where the paper was published and who wrote it rather than on the
content of the paper.
Your two criticisms were false. In the first one you claimed
u > c^2/v cannot mean that a tachyon becomes undetectable because
all particles must be observable in a frame.
<snip>
Your second criticism was that that imaginary mass means that
tachyons have imaginary energy and momentum.
<snip>
======================================================================
You have a TERRIBLE memory. Those weren't my arguments AT ALL. And
your wording of the first criticism shows that you STILL misunderstand
what frames represent.
Here are a few conversations in which various group members whom I
admire (and whose knowledge of the subject exceed my own) ALL agree
that your thoughts on tachyons are nonsense.:
======================================================================
In regard to your mis-understandings about what frames, coeal had a
good comment: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/rLiepB5Yjh8/m/NuzA_ofjAwAJ
| That statement reveals a very elementary misunderstanding. Remember
| that everything is "in" every frame all the time. We can describe
| phenomena in terms of any system of coordinates we like. It doesn't
| change what is physically happening. If you arrange for a
| superluminal signal to be transmitted and received, that process can
| be described in terms of infinitely many different systems of
| inertial coordinates. In terms of some of those systems the signal
| is going in the positive time direction and in terms of others it
| is going in the negative time direction. But that doesn't change
| what happens.
| In other words, it doesn't make sense to say the signal was
| successfully transmitted in one description of the events, but it
| was not successfully transmitted in another description of the very
| same events. Whether a signal is or is not successfully transmitted
| between two events is a coordinate-independent fact. But whether it
| went in the positive or negative time direction is coordinate
| dependent. Do you understand this?
======================================================================
Like other fringe posters, you believe that EVERYBODY who disagrees
with you is misguided.
In your defense, you DO have a certain degree of knowledge about SR,
and you certainly believe, as did Dono, that you are a defender of
SR against the crackpots.
But as with Dono, you have no knowledge of the limits of your
understanding.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 13:29:36 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 4:07:39 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
Like other fringe posters, you believe that EVERYBODY who disagrees
with you is misguided.
Not at all. I greatly respected all these criticisms from you and
the rest of the valiant crew on the relativity boards, and the
published paper has responded to all of them. I wish you would
take the time to actually read and understand it.
======================================================================
It didn't take me more than a few minutes looking at your paper to
understand that you are STILL ripping spacetime to shreds: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mZJcqaV2KieXFNU5iWHCsVtDK21HOLWE/view?usp=sharing
You don't understand spacetime diagrams. They provide a direct
graphical representation of the Lorentz transformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Graphical_representation_of_the_Lorentz_transformation
The above section is at least 95% unchanged from when I originally
added the section on 11 November 2018 https://tinyurl.com/4a388w7x
In August 2020, "UKER" objected to the way that I worded the last
paragraph, so we reached a compromise. https://tinyurl.com/57a29nne
In the past, you have consistently avoided using spacetime diagrams
because they don't express your ideas in the way that you would prefer
to express them.
Your deprecation of spacetime diagrams essentially
amounts to dissing the LT.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 17:00:08 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 14:18:08 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
It didn't take me more than a few minutes looking at your paper to understand that you are STILL ripping spacetime to shreds:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mZJcqaV2KieXFNU5iWHCsVtDK21HOLWE/view?usp=sharing
Only "a few minutes"? Then you haven't understood that there is no "ripping spacetime to shreds"
======================================================================
Your arguments really haven't changed over the years. You have merely
glossed over your points by arguing about instrumental detectability.
So no, it really hasn't been necessary to spend more than a few
minutes finding where you have denied the validity of LT and special relativity.
Looking at https://vixra.org/pdf/2011.0076v1.pdf, I see that after
dissing a few Minkowski diagrams at the beginning, you revert to your so-called "laboratory frame" diagrams that allow you to freely
set up absurdities without the absurdities being readily apparent. ======================================================================
The objection that Al made (and you reiterated) that all objects
should appear in all frames is laid to rest in my DOI, and I also
explained it to you in a previous post:
====================================================================== Reality does not change due to the motions of the observer. ======================================================================
"Of course, an observer must use instruments to observe particles,
so a method of observing particles which have u > c^2/v was
described in the very paper that you were criticizing:
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
======================================================================
Your arguments here offer no improvement over the vixra articles. ======================================================================
And using instruments, one can detect tachyons in the u > c^2/v
region:
"the tachyon source sending a signal at u = ∞, the observer can’t receive the signal directly, but the observer could allow the
receiver to move toward the source at speed, v. Thus the speed of
the tachyon relative to the receiver could be nearly infinite and
its energy, relative to the receiver, would be greater than zero."
Thus A's criticism is avoided, so does that satisfy your concern
about shredding spacetime, or do you mean something else?
====================================================================== Absolutely not. You still insist that reality changes as a result of
observer motion. One cannot make excuses on the basis of factors
supposedly affecting instrumental performance. ======================================================================
"Accelerations have nothing to do with history.
Their only interest is to change the frame of reference, that is to say, CHRONOTROPY and metric.
Nothing to do with what happens after.
Because everything happens AFTER. And in the long segments of uniform relative speeds.
We should not worry about accelerations, they are only a small thing
over a small duration if we focus on the total times recorded.
The time gap, I repeat, is dust under the carpet. It does not exist for Terrence, nor for Stella if we understand what we are defining.
That is Minkowskian ideology."
Well, that's wrong.
Apparently acceleration has an impact upon the flow of time, while
velocity hasn't.
One reason: several observations point in this direction (e.g. Havard
Tower experiment, Pioneer anomaly).
second: velocity is not defined in the dark, forcefree space of SRT.
Therefore we need to put more emphasis on acceleration and forget v for
a moment.
TH
Le 26/09/2024 à 11:14, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
That is a good Minkowski diagram and shows correctly what is intended
and claimed to be shown.
Mikko, you are very kind, but you have not yet understood everything
about Hachel's genius (that's me).
Above all, we must stop talking nonsense.
On 2024-09-28 21:26:40 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Above all, we must stop talking nonsense.
R.H.
Good idea but doesn't happen as long as nobody wants to do it first.
Mikko
On 2024-09-26 13:09:06 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 26/09/2024 11:14, Mikko a crit :
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1> >>>>
With a huge dust under the carpet right in the middle (the stupid
time-gap of physicists).
It's depressing.
That is a good Minkowski diagram and shows correctly what is intended
and claimed to be shown.
Mikko, you are very kind, but you have not yet understood everything
about Hachel's genius (that's me).
I have understood that according to a minority opnion Hachel is a genious.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 20:28:00 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
Prok, reality does NOT change unless tachyons can move backward in
time for some observers. The backward-in-time scenarios are caused
by (1 - uv/c^2) in the LT, but to get to t' < 0, u' must REACH
infinity (an impossibility) in order to get there. Now, as to
spacetime diagrams ...
The Minkowski diagram Figure 4 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101
shows D sending a tachyon signal at t = vL/c^2 to C, but to C when?
It is usually presumed that D can send it infinitely fast to C at
t = 0 who can send it infinitely fast to B at t = 0. If we assume
that B originated the message at t = vL/c^2 and passed it to D, then
B would have received the message before it was originated.
The problem with that scenario is that you must jump frames to
presume that D can send it infinitely fast. If you are required to
stay in the AB-stationary frame, C is NOT at t = 0 when D sends
the signal to C at t = vL/c^2 (hence the horizontal arrow), and
you are REQUIRED to perform all of your analysis is ONE frame (it
doesn't matter which one, as Figure 5 attests) by well-known
physicists such as David Morin, John Wheeler and Edwin Taylor
in their physics textbooks. Recami also has proclaimed thus in
his papers.
The MD has mesmerized many physicists into jumping frames without
realizing it when dealing with tachyon problems. I went to lab
views to get away from that, but I managed to get to the point
where I could argue using MDs, so you are quoting past situations
when you claim that I don't understand them.
Actually, you and many others failed to use them properly when
dealing with tachyons and it took a long time for me to wade
through the morass.
(sigh)
The LT serve to map events from one frame to another frame. They do
not deal with momentum or energy. They do not mention moving
particles which may go faster or slower than the speed of light, etc.
In your paper at DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, you write:
| The Lorentz transform equations have been an excellent
| model of reality (in the absence of significant gravitational
| effects) for particles which travel slower or at the speed of
| light, but they place time and space on an equal footing, which
| presents problems when dealing with tachyons.
What you have REALLY written here is that "The Lorentz transform
equations do not apply to spacelike-separated events."
In other words, "Special Relativity Is False".
If I were to redraw your Figure 6 for different observers adding a
background of fixed events as I did in https://tinyurl.com/mrxyx3ek,
I would see that the origin events would shift for the different
observers, even as the receiving events shifted in my original
scenario. Spacetime is still ripped to shreds.
I've reattached my drawing. Study it and study your own Figure 6.
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 20:53:41 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
Your initial statement is that the S' frame is stationary and you
are going to move the lab frame. Then you place two observers, C
and D, orthogonal because they are stationary in S'. Then you
send a signal from D to C infinitely fast.
Now in the triptych, you move the lab frame S. That's fine, but
S' is the STATIONARY frame: C and D should still be vertical.
So I must assume that you are actually switching to the S frame
and making IT stationary, right?
======================================================================
I stated very clearly that I am using the inverse Lorentz transform
to map the events of STATIONARY frame S' to my MOVING lab frame. To
keep the diagrams uncluttered, I did not draw the coordinates of my
lab frame. My coordinates remain orthogonal. ======================================================================
So you have done exactly what Morin, Taylor, Wheeler and Recami
say NOT to do. You have switched horses (er, frames) in the
middle of the stream (er, problem setup).
======================================================================
No, I am not switching back and forth between frames. ======================================================================
======================================================================
For the purpose of any one diagram, my moving frame is moving at a
constant rate relative to the stationary frame, and I stick to that
one frame without jumping around. ======================================================================
So let's look at the figure on the right with v = 0.1c. As viewed
from S, t1 = \gamma (0 + 0.1L) = 0.1gL. At that time in S, the time
in C is not at t = 0. This is relativity of simultaneity (RoS).
Prok, YOU are the one trying to rip SR to shreds by pretending you
can ignore RoS. Figures 4 and 5 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101
obey RoS, your figures do not.
======================================================================
There is no problem with my triptych diagrams. As I have drawn them,
the event associated with receipt of the signal is at t'=0 in all
three scenarios. It is the diagram below the triptych labeled "Gary's proposal" which is totally INSANE. In order to prevent the arrow from
moving backwards in time as observed in my moving frame, you would
have the context of the receiving event SHIFT as the result of my
movement. ======================================================================
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:55:04 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures. Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:51:55 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
....
No, Prok, you misunderstand. I'm saying that the signal should
arrive at t' = vL/c^2. not t' = 0 to save RoS. There is no "ripping spacetime to shreds" :-). To help you understand:
Claiming that t' = vL/c^2 DESTROYS RoS, does not rescue it.
There can be any number of observers of the same events. Suppose you
are in the lab frame moving to the left at 0.1 c. You claim that to
save RoS, the S' observer must receive the signal at t' = 0.1*L/c^2
I am concurrently observing the same events from a frame moving at v=0.
To save RoS, the S' observer must receive the signal at t'=0.
My wife is concurrently observing the same events from a frame moving
at v=-0.1c. To save RoS, the S' observer must receive the signal at
t' = -0.1*L/c^2.
Which is it, Gary? Does the S' observer receive the signal at
t' = 0.1*L/c^2, t' = 0, or t' = -0.1*L/c^2 ?
Does reality change as a result of the motion of external observers?
Does reality split into an infinity of worlds? Is your "theory" a
"many worlds" interpretation of special relativity?
Your "diagrams" are utterly idiotic.
This beauty and this scientific truth seem to hurt the eyes.
We have been living in a crazy world since antiquity.
A crazy world where were conceived and build steam engines, trains, cars, planes, rockets, atomic bombs (oops), nuclear power plants. We travelled to the
Moon and back, launched satellites, created computers, vaccines and radars.
Not that bad for a "crazy world", don't you think?
Le 01/10/2024 à 20:47, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:55:04 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures. Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.
It is true that this mania for drawing oblique axes with all the possible fancies is absolutely distressing.
But that is not the worst.
The worst is that they think, probably with conviction, that not only should the
world be made as they draw it, but that in addition their stupid lines are very
beautiful.
We then enter into what future generations will call the relativistic crime, which does not consist in being wrong (everyone has the right to be wrong) but in
spitting on Doctor Hachel who had given them everything, from the resolution of
the Langevin paradox, to the resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox, including the
developed equations of uniformly accelerated frames of reference.
That is what is worthy of making one bray like a donkey.
I have again shown by two very simple diagrams, here, on September 27 at 5:04 p.m. that it was much more beautiful and especially much more correct to draw horizontal lines of simultaneity.
This beauty and this scientific truth seem to hurt the eyes.
We have been living in a crazy world since antiquity.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:47:16 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures. Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.
I have told you several times that I am designating the S' as
stationary, in addition to plainly stating that fact in my drawing.
Our frame, the S frame, is moving.
To simplify the figures, I have not drawn the S axes, which are
orthogonal. The S' axes are skewed because I am mapping events
in S' to our coordinate system, where our S coordinate system
is moving relative to the S' coordinate system at speeds -0.1c,
0c, and +0.1c.
Prok, I have shown that you completely misunderstood my thesis
whereas the reviewer of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 did not
or he would have rejected it. Rather than acknowledge your
error and try to understand, you launch another baseless attack
because of your confusion about what v means. It is the speed
that D must send the signal (Event E1) so it arrives when C and
A are adjacent (E2). Furthermore, A must send a signal to B
when B is adjacent to D. Your figures are only half of the full
problem, and they do NOT describe my "proposal." They are your
imaginings. If you want to discuss my thesis, then use my
figures (4 and 5, particularly). Yours are straw men.
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures. Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.
There is only one person here who is confused, and that is YOU.
In the S' frame, an infinite speed tachyonic signal is emitted
from (x',t') = (D,0) and is received in zero time at (x',t') = (C,0)
That is zero time as measured in the S' frame.
The emission and receipt events are concurrently monitored by
observers in three "S" frames, where the "S" frames are moving
relative to the S' frame at speeds -0.1c, 0c, and +0.1c, and so
forth.
In general, observers in the "S" frames do not consider the signals
as traveling from D to C in zero time.
Le 01/10/2024 à 23:56, Python a écrit :
Your "diagrams" are utterly idiotic.
This beauty and this scientific truth seem to hurt the eyes.
We have been living in a crazy world since antiquity.
A crazy world where were conceived and build steam engines, trains, cars,
planes, rockets, atomic bombs (oops), nuclear power plants. We travelled to the
Moon and back, launched satellites, created computers, vaccines and radars. >>
Not that bad for a "crazy world", don't you think?
That's easy to say.
Personally, I think the opposite and often people comfort me by saying: "If men
weren't so crazy, we would be technologically millennia ahead".
That's probably very true.
Of course, what you say is true: it's not so bad.
But the truth still makes you want to cry.
I don't mean that we are far behind what we could have done if men had thought
with their heads rather than with their dicks.
In my opinion, you are wrong, and it is the great philosophers who are right when they talk about human madness (that is to say, the majority who, for probably
jealous reasons, disgust or prevent progress from advancing more quickly).
Le 02/10/2024 à 00:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 01/10/2024 à 23:56, Python a écrit :
Your "diagrams" are utterly idiotic.
This beauty and this scientific truth seem to hurt the eyes.
We have been living in a crazy world since antiquity.
A crazy world where were conceived and build steam engines, trains, cars, >>> planes, rockets, atomic bombs (oops), nuclear power plants. We travelled to the
Moon and back, launched satellites, created computers, vaccines and radars. >>>
Not that bad for a "crazy world", don't you think?
That's easy to say.
Personally, I think the opposite and often people comfort me by saying: "If men
weren't so crazy, we would be technologically millennia ahead".
That's probably very true.
Of course, what you say is true: it's not so bad.
But the truth still makes you want to cry.
I don't mean that we are far behind what we could have done if men had thought
with their heads rather than with their dicks.
In my opinion, you are wrong, and it is the great philosophers who are right >> when they talk about human madness (that is to say, the majority who, for probably
jealous reasons, disgust or prevent progress from advancing more quickly).
So we have to confront ONE real world, with bad and good things, that it what it
is
to a fantasy world in the mind of a single, uneducated, histrionic, dishonest and
megalomaniac retired M.D.
Let us take time to decide :-)
Le 02/10/2024 à 00:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 01/10/2024 à 23:56, Python a écrit :
Your "diagrams" are utterly idiotic.
This beauty and this scientific truth seem to hurt the eyes.
We have been living in a crazy world since antiquity.
A crazy world where were conceived and build steam engines, trains,
cars,
planes, rockets, atomic bombs (oops), nuclear power plants. We
travelled to the
Moon and back, launched satellites, created computers, vaccines and
radars.
Not that bad for a "crazy world", don't you think?
That's easy to say.
Personally, I think the opposite and often people comfort me by
saying: "If men weren't so crazy, we would be technologically
millennia ahead".
That's probably very true.
Of course, what you say is true: it's not so bad.
But the truth still makes you want to cry.
I don't mean that we are far behind what we could have done if men had
thought with their heads rather than with their dicks.
In my opinion, you are wrong, and it is the great philosophers who are
right when they talk about human madness (that is to say, the majority
who, for probably jealous reasons, disgust or prevent progress from
advancing more quickly).
So we have to confront ONE real world, with bad and good things, that it
what it is
to a fantasy world in the mind of a single, uneducated, histrionic,
dishonest and
megalomagniac retired M.D.
Le 01/10/2024 à 21:11, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 01/10/2024 à 20:47, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:55:04 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures. Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.
It is true that this mania for drawing oblique axes with all the
possible fancies is absolutely distressing.
But that is not the worst.
The worst is that they think, probably with conviction, that not only
should the world be made as they draw it, but that in addition their
stupid lines are very beautiful.
We then enter into what future generations will call the relativistic
crime, which does not consist in being wrong (everyone has the right
to be wrong) but in spitting on Doctor Hachel who had given them
everything, from the resolution of the Langevin paradox, to the
resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox, including the developed equations
of uniformly accelerated frames of reference.
That is what is worthy of making one bray like a donkey.
I have again shown by two very simple diagrams, here, on September 27
at 5:04 p.m. that it was much more beautiful and especially much more
correct to draw horizontal lines of simultaneity.
Your "diagrams" are utterly idiotic.
This beauty and this scientific truth seem to hurt the eyes.
We have been living in a crazy world since antiquity.
A crazy world where were conceived and build steam engines, trains, cars, planes, rockets, atomic bombs (oops), nuclear power plants. We travelled
to the
Moon and back, launched satellites, created computers, vaccines and radars.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 22:18:12 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:24:31 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
I have told you several times that I am designating the S' as
stationary, in addition to plainly stating that fact in my drawing.
And then you "moved" the lab frame and pretended S' was still
stationary, which is contradicted by the fact that the t' and
x' axes are no longer orthogonal.
======================================================================
Why do you have such difficulty with a ***SIMPLE*** mental switch?
The x' and t' axes are tilted because our S frame is moving.
Our x and t axes are orthogonal from OUR point of view.
Look, if you want the S frame to be stationary and the S' frame
to be moving, your are perfectly free to do this ***TRIVIAL***
switch. Physically it makes no difference.
I only wanted the S' frame to be stationary because I wanted
eventually for you to be able to envision the S' frame to be
surrounded by an INFINITY of moving observers, all of whom
have a different view of the emission and receipt events,
disagreeing on their order. ======================================================================
Our frame, the S frame, is moving.
If it's "our" frame, then we are stationary by the first principle.
======================================================================
No. We are NOT obligated always to make ourselves the stationary
observer.
[Yes, I'm aware of your many contributions to Wiki] ======================================================================
This is ridiculous. AMONG OTHER THINGS, the moving observer is not
attempting to observe the tachyons directly, but is observing the
READOUTS of the tachyon emitters and receivers. At any subluminal v,
there can be no limitation on the observers' ability to monitor their READOUTS. ======================================================================
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 3:04:17 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 22:26:50 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
Why do you have such difficulty with a ***SIMPLE*** mental switch?
The x' and t' axes are tilted because our S frame is moving.
Our x and t axes are orthogonal from OUR point of view.
Exactly, OUR POV. That means WE have located ourselves at rest
WRT the S frame. Previously, we were at rest in the S' frame.
We have switched frames. Why do you have such difficulty with a ***SIMPLE*** factual switch?
You are stuck with some sort of language difficulty.
The three panels show S and S' in different states of motion with
respect to each other. There is no such thing as an absolute state
of motion, but I just happen to arbitrarily designate one frame or
other as the "stationary" frame.
See the attached figure 1.
1) In the left panel, I can arbitrarily designate the S frame as
"stationary" and the S' frame as moving at 0.1c to the left
relative to the S frame.
2) Alternatively, I can arbitrarily designate the S' frame as
"stationary" and the S frame (which includes us) as moving at
0.1c to the right relative to the S' frame.
3) Absolute speeds are meaningless. The designation of one frame or
the other as "stationary" is arbitrary. The important measure is
their relative states of motion.
4) In the middle panel, I can arbitrarily designate the S frame as
"stationary" and the S' frame as moving at 0c relative to the S
frame.
5) Alternatively, I can designate the S' frame as "stationary" and
the S frame (which includes us) as moving at 0c relative to the S'
frame.
6) Absolute speeds are meaningless. The designation of one frame or
the other as "stationary" is arbitrary. The important measure is
their relative states of motion.
7) In the right panel, I can arbitrarily designate the S frame as
"stationary" and the S' frame as moving at 0.1c to the right
relative to the S frame.
8) Alternatively, I can arbitrarily designate the S' frame as
"stationary" and the S frame (which includes us) as moving at
0.1c to the left relative to the S' frame.
9) Absolute speeds are meaningless. The designation of one frame or
the other as "stationary" is arbitrary. The important measure is
their relative states of motion.
See attached figure 3.
The dots represent spacetime events in S', mapped onto S using
the inverse Lorentz transformation.
In the left panel, the immediate context of the receiving event
includes events 1, 2 and 6.
If, to prevent the formation of causality loops, you apply your
speed limit to superluminal velocities, the immediate context
of the receiving event is shifted to include events 4, 5 and 8.
The context of the receiving event shifts for EVERY observer
moving at a different speed relative to S'. This is absurd.
On 2024-09-26 12:44:21 +0000, gharnagel said:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:57:46 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-09-25 15:34:35 +0000, gharnagel said:
Actually, it might be correct.
Yes, but it's still not something drawn by Minkovski.
It wasn't drawn by Einstein or Poincare, either. They're all
dead. It is, however, a Minkowski diagram,
No one sai it wasn't, but "Dr" Hachel's question was "Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?" clearly indicating that he
thinks Minkovski drew it.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 9:17:40 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 7:57:10 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
You are stuck with some sort of language difficulty.
It is more than a "language" difficulty. The frame in which time
and space axes are orthogonal IS the frame in which "WE" are at
rest. In the center panel of the top trio, "WE" are at rest in
the S frame. In the left panel, "WE" are at rest in the S' frame.
In the right panel "WE" are at rest in the S'' frame. In order
to do that, "WE" had to undergo significant acceleration: "WE"
switched frames.
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
See Figure 4
Let us change the description of the diagram slightly to one that
you might agree with better.
The emission of a signal from D and its receipt by C in the S'
frame is being concurrently monitored by observers 1, 2, and 3
in frames S1, S2, and S3.
Three "outside" observers of the same events. No frame jumping.
Any objections to that?
The emission event occurs at (x',t') = (D,0)
The receipt event occurs at (x',t') = (C,0)
1, 2, and 3 are all stationary within their own frames.
If you understand the relabeled diagram, please look at my other
discussions with this improved understanding.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 4:05:54 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 15:09:32 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one sai it wasn't, but "Dr" Hachel's question was "Did you
see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?" clearly
indicating that he thinks Minkovski drew it.
Oh, come on! You are taking what he says too literally. I took
it as metaphorically. I assumed you would have understood that
once I wrote my reply.
Sloppiness of expression often reflects sloppiness in thinking. "Metaphorical" attribution of visual/textual/oral quotes to others,
even if "in spirit" the quotes may be correct, is improper.
"The French don't care what they do actually, as long as they
pronounce it properly."
Why not focus on where Hachel is WRONG, rather than merely "sloppy"?
He was using the so-called "gap" in the traveler's simultaneity lines
to "prove" that wiki got it wrong. Sort of like what YOU did last
year when you falsely dissed my paper on tachyons. Remember?
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:43:08 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
The notion of tachyon is therefore absurd, it would have to leave after
arriving, and that has no physical meaning in well-understood
relativity.
Which you do not understand. Sorry.
Le 27/09/2024 à 16:59, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:43:08 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
The notion of tachyon is therefore absurd, it would have to
leave after arriving, and that has no physical meaning in
well-understood relativity.
Which you do not understand. Sorry.
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
If Vr---> ∞ then Vo=c
La vitesse observable de la lumière et de toute loi physique est infranchissable.
Cette vitesse étant déjà infinie dans le référentiel du récepteur
(dans son hyperplan de simultanéité).
C'est pourtant très simple.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:19:35 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
Why not focus on where Hachel is WRONG, rather than merely "sloppy"?
He was using the so-called "gap" in the traveler's simultaneity lines
to "prove" that wiki got it wrong. Sort of like what YOU did last
year when you falsely dissed my paper on tachyons. Remember?
LOTS of people dissed your paper from different standpoints, not
just me.
Like too many others, you seem unable to comprehend legitimateyour life.
criticism of your pet notions to which you have devoted years of
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:09:12 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 27/09/2024 à 16:59, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:43:08 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
The notion of tachyon is therefore absurd, it would have to
leave after arriving, and that has no physical meaning in
well-understood relativity.
Which you do not understand. Sorry.
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
If Vr---> ∞ then Vo=c
It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to know that as Vr---> ∞,
Vo in your equation approaches zero, not c.
Le 27/09/2024 à 23:52, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:09:12 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 27/09/2024 à 16:59, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:43:08 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
The notion of tachyon is therefore absurd, it would have to
leave after arriving, and that has no physical meaning in well-understood relativity.
Which you do not understand. Sorry.
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
If Vr---> ∞ then Vo=c
It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to know that as Vr---> ∞,
Vo in your equation approaches zero, not c.
I advise you to draw a curve of the given equation, and see what any
infinite real speed tends towards in an anisochronous universe.
In France, our experts in mathematics seem to say that
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) tends towards c.
"Va donc exister une vitesse limite infranchissable qui va s'étendre à toutes les particules et toutes les lois de la physique."
Docteur Richard Hachel, novembre 1986.
R.H.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 0:23:18 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
If Vr---> ∞ then Vo=c
It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to know that as Vr---> ∞,
Vo in your equation approaches zero, not c.
In France, our experts in mathematics seem to say that
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) tends towards c.
I can only see what I see, and I doubt you are being honest.
Don't quote yourself as an "expert" in mathematics because you're
not. Neither are you an expert in relativity.
Le 28/09/2024 à 03:10, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 0:23:18 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
If Vr---> ∞ then Vo=c
It doesn't take a degree in mathematics to know that as Vr---> ∞,
Vo in your equation approaches zero, not c.
In France, our experts in mathematics seem to say that Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) tends towards c.
I can only see what I see, and I doubt you are being honest.
Don't quote yourself as an "expert" in mathematics because you're
not. Neither are you an expert in relativity.
Pffffff...
Well...
You say that the equation does not tend to c if Vr is infinite.
Let's take Vr very large, example Vr=1000c
Let's set Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Vo=1000c/sqrt(1+1000²)
Vo=(1000/1000.0005)c=0.9999995c
And the higher you go, the more it tends to c.
R.H.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:28:12 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-09-25 00:27:09 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
I stumbled upon this on Wikipedia...
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Did you see where Minkowski places his simultaneity plans?
But that's not it!!!
That's not it AT ALL!!!
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
That's clearly not Minkowski's diagram (did he have suitable drawing software in the 19th century?), but someone's interpretation of it. I
hope you're not adopting Thomas Heger's habit of lying about who wrote what.
Le 26/09/2024 à 08:25, Thomas Heger a écrit :
this wasn't my diagram, but looks actually correct.
My own explanation for the so called twin paradox was a bit similar,
but based on the idea, that acceleration causes the relativistic
effects and not velocity.
Such a travel would cause a situation, where a spaceship gets
accelerated from - say- Earth, to reach a certain travel velocity to a
distant star and a planet there.
Then the spaceship gets decelerated in order to land there.
Then the spaceship starts from there, travels back to Earth and needs
to decelerate here.
This requires four instances of acceleration (two positive and two
negative), which should cancel the effect.
...
TH
Les accélérations n'ont rien à voir dans l'histoire.
Leur seul intérêt est de faire changer de référentiel, c'est à dire, de CHRONOTROPIE et de métrique.
Rien à voir avec ce qui se passe après.
Car tout se passe APRES. Et dans les longs segments de vitesses
relatives uniformes.
Il ne faut pas se soucier des accélérations, elle ne sont que peu de
choses sur peu de durées si l'on se concentre sur les temps totaux enregistrés.
Le time-gap, je le répète, c'est de la poussière sous le tapis. Ca n'existe ni pour Terrence, ni pour Stella si l'on comprend bien ce que
l'on est en train de définir.
C'est de l'idéologie minkowskienne, ça.
R.H.
An addendum to my previous post:
I only discussed HALF of the necessary analysis. In order to prove
that a solution is consistent (i.e, a closed loop solution is found
which does not violate RoS), it must be so from the perspective of
A and B as well as from the perspective of C and D.
Your schema does so with infinite speed tachyons in both frames.
Other arrangements are not so forgiving. Some are consistent in
one frame, but not in the other when obeying RoS. In that case,
a closed loop is not a valid solution. There are several examples
of this type.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 13:26:16 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
....
The blue arrow in the attachment shows the line of simultaneity for
the CD frame (pontifically called the S frame). That arrow violates
RoS in the lab frame. Prok seems to be under the mistaken impression
that I am claiming that the blue arrow should look like a horizontal
arrow in the lab frame. I am NOT! I am claiming that as far as the
lab frame is concerned that the arrow in the lab frame is horizontal because the arrow in the S frame is going upward (violet arrow).
I hope this puts to rest the hyper-ventilation expressed as "ripping spacetime to shreds!" It does, of course, deserves some cogitation
about why D can't send an infinitely-fast signal to C.
Going through your Universal J. of Physics and Application paper,
I am VERY much reminded of David Seppala, who constantly returned
to these forums presenting the same two or three basic scenarios
with a few new added complications that he hoped would show some inconsistency with special relativity.
YOUR tactic is to add additional observers to basic, very well-
known demonstrations of causality violation associated with
superluminal signaling and to argue about what these additional
observers are or aren't capable of seeing.
First of all, you do not appear to comprehend the modern usage
of the word "observer". Otherwise you would not have written such
absurdities as "Thus a signal cannot be sent round-trip in this
configuration since A isn’t adjacent to C at t = vL/c2."
Taylor and Wheeler discussed the modern concept of "observer" in
Spacetime Physics. The classical usage of the word "observer" very
often led to the same sort of reasoning difficulties that you exhibit,
so they championed a revised definition.
See Figure 2-6 from their textbook. https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/02_chapter2.pdf
For valid pedagogical reasons, their description is a bit verbose.
In Wikipedia I explained the concept with somewhat fewer words as
follows: (probably at least 95% my original wording.) ======================================================================
| "Imagine that the frame under consideration is equipped with a
| dense lattice of clocks, synchronized within this reference frame,
| that extends indefinitely throughout the three dimensions of
| space. Any specific location within the lattice is not important.
| The latticework of clocks is used to determine the time and
| position of events taking place within the whole frame. The term
| observer refers to the whole ensemble of clocks associated with
| one inertial frame of reference.
| "In this idealized case, every point in space has a clock
| associated with it, and thus the clocks register each event
| instantly, with no time delay between an event and its recording.
| A real observer, will see a delay between the emission of a signal
| and its detection due to the speed of light. To synchronize the
| clocks, in the data reduction following an experiment, the time
| when a signal is received will be corrected to reflect its actual
| time were it to have been recorded by an idealized lattice of
| clocks." ======================================================================
In the attached figure, I modified Taylor and Wheeler's diagram by
placing a blue laptop computer in the lower righthand corner to which
all of the clocks in the infinite lattice of clocks report the events
that they have detected.
In a two-dimensional Minkowski diagram, I would diagram this concept
with a dense line of black clocks, with one blue dot representing the
laptop compouter.
In your Figure 4, your propose that D should not be able to send the
signal faster than u′ = −c^2/v.
*** THIS IS STUPID ***
Frame S' is surrounded by an INFINITE number of other frames
traveling at an INFINITY of different velocities v with respect
to S'.
It is IMPOSSIBLE that the speed at which D can send a signal to
C should in any way be dictated by relative speed v of any other
frame because there are an infinite number of different v's to
choose from.
If you think otherwise, you are nuts.
In my re-drawing of your Figure 4, D sends an infinite speed signal
to C as measured in the S' frame. The signal includes a GUID, the
globally unique identifier 87f01be4-0a75-4428-b296-409ca23312c4
The RECEIPT of the signal by C is detected up by the infinite array
of clocks, and the time of this event and the GUID are transmitted
to the blue laptop computer which I have drawn off to the side.
Several seconds later, the TRANSMISSION of the signal by D is
detected by the same infinite array of clocks, and the time of this
event and the GUID are transmitted the the blue laptop computer.
An analysis program on the laptop computer notes that the transmission
of the uniquely labeled event occurred after its receipt.
*** THERE ARE NO WORRIES ABOUT WHO IS ADJACENT TO WHOM ***
On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 12:00:55 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
Funny, I just explained why it does, but you deleted it and made an
unproven assertion.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 12:59:50 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
I have not limited the speed D can send the signal in general,
only if a closed loop is required.
The speed D does not depend on whether somebody is trying to set up
a closed loop.
And I left v a parameter in my equations.
And why should v determine the physics of frame S'?
The logic of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 is tighter than you
believe, but not conclusive. I wish that we could get beyond the
trivial things and discuss those.
No point. I've wasted enough time on this thread.
You are just like Dono, who also believed himself to be a defender of
SP against the crackpots, yet was blind to defects in his own original research.
======================================================================
Kip Thorne established time travel and its associated paradoxes to be
a legitimate field of research. I have nothing against the universe
being FAR stranger than anything that I have ever believed. ======================================================================
Your defective arguments, however, provide nothing worthwhile to
consider.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 166:40:10 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,529 |
