Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Oh my God!
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 13:26:16 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <063a7104ff3cfbd450753355870ade16@www.novabbs.com>
References: <Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp> <llpubiFgheaU8@mid.individual.net> <Zq1pHnYCgAwr5qC37tYAjjYmORY@jntp> <c343b16e27e0220d0b586aadaac601bb@www.novabbs.com> <38a724f9aa7028dc455f71fda36abdb8@www.novabbs.com> <ad8212d173bdfb8447f337e7cbc13dda@novabbs.com> <1ea43eb5545f362bbcdb802e857bb126@www.novabbs.com> <ed8708d5473172c7f8fb0799eb5753a1@www.novabbs.com> <a7c57e3f538be43cae943e94dff13256@www.novabbs.com> <6867f373a4258380db55b48d0a440d90@www.novabbs.com> <f0ba713eae682022c019fb36a9df13b5@www.novabbs.com> <8c3912f32d9e1ad8f69c00cf2febffc8@www.novabbs.com> <4fd70cf6f71273c4d46907ff286919c1@www.novabbs.com> <e54297e8f054a2bcbe487fdca5a33067@www.novabbs.com> <e7b1772a6aa116e8e1d096d426c66289@www.novabbs.com> <65bb769b58c93cae216dcc56668d9c65@www.novabbs.com> <de81244541343e4b4f1a6766c9911686@www.novabbs.com> <ef7b31670d5452c5226f23cd20eaaa85@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="538212"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="TRF929uvrTGZYJLF+N3tVBXNVfr/PeoSjsJ9hd5hWzo";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cefb4c33981645a229d345bae7bb8942e6b32c35
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$f57oPJ8l1rZJW7ITrZ.7KuxxP7pnDile24CTF7yQkgcHpK5m3YUTi
Bytes: 3693
Lines: 38

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:41:25 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

> 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.

A further addendum:  The analysis of panel 3, concluding that the
closed loop elapsed time was zero was based on the conventional
approach, which violates relativity of simultaneity.  The question
we must ask ourselves is, is it possible to violate RoS?

The attached figure is panel 3 with the lab frame info added in green.
In that frame the horizontal lines represent the points of simultaneity.
That is, when A is at t = 0, B is at t = 0.

However, C is also at t = 0 (t' = 0) AND D is ALSO at t = 0 (t' does
MOT equal zero).  RoS is baked into spacetime diagrams because they
are representations of the LT equations.

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.