Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 12:59:50 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <9a9e354812405ac743fc821721868496@www.novabbs.com>
References: <Ev7wMrtKlxguxDn1RDUke8-o3Zo@jntp> <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> <063a7104ff3cfbd450753355870ade16@www.novabbs.com> <1ed92adb5e86193652fe04d9a36e708b@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="679626"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="TRF929uvrTGZYJLF+N3tVBXNVfr/PeoSjsJ9hd5hWzo";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cefb4c33981645a229d345bae7bb8942e6b32c35
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$xu7chRWL4ilogbAFCvYTtO1VdGUP7IxcVgIuZNUphXVQ914ZOTFG2
Bytes: 10208
Lines: 175

On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 7:42:59 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
> 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.

Oh, thank you VERY much!

> 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.

This is basically a straw-man caricature of my thesis.  In addition,
you accuse me of adding observers when YOU add even more.  Don't
you see the irony of that?

> 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."

And you STILL don't comprehend the subtleties.  And rather than
explaining why you BELIEVE my statement is absurd, you launch into
a vapid response that doesn't get to the basic problem.

> 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.

I'm well aware of this and have used it in explaining to Seppalas
why their views are wrong.  What you fail to understand is I have
not limited my analysis to particular observer velocities as you
have done in your triptychs.

> 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.

Thank you for man-splainig yhe obvious.

> 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 ***

Yes, it is.  But you STILL don't understand, or you are just
developing a straw-man.  I have not limited the speed D can send
the signal in general, only if a closed loop is required.  Surely
you understand that if we want a missile to collide with a target
moving at v, its speed can be anything as long as it's greater
than v; but if we want them to meet at a particular point, the
number of options are greatly reduced.

> Frame S' is surrounded by an INFINITE number of other frames
> traveling at an INFINITY of different velocities v with respect
> to S'.

And each one requires a different positioning of the observers
in order to complete a loop.  That's why I specify times
as t = vL/c^2.  If they want to communicate around a loop with
D, L is not the same for them.  As I said, you fail to understand
the subtleties of the problem.

You believe that just because they can receive the signal, my
analysis falls apart.  This is not so.  I explained this in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101:

"What about other observers traveling at some velocity v2? If
v2 < v, the other observer can receive the signal and even
participate (if he is in the proper initial position) without
violating causality; and if v2 > v, that observer won’t be able
to close the message loop unless the observers are properly
positioned initially, in which case, causality will be preserved."

I didn't go into a detailed explanation because that would
distract from the main point of the paper.  I left it as an
exercise for competent readers.

> 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.

And I left v a parameter in my equations.

> If you think otherwise, you are nuts.

You seem to be getting a bit upset, Prok :-(

> 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

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with those.  I wondered what they were, but
it seems that your verbose :-) explanation is irrelevant, anyway.

> 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.

The only way an interloper observer (F) can see that C has received
the signal is for F to be adjacent to C when C receives the message.
F is traveling at some velocity, v2.  If v2 < v, then F can't receive
the signal because Method I limitations apply.  If v2 > v, then the
speed of the signal isn't infinite, it is less and F can complete a
message loop with D IF F has a cohort, G, adjacent with D at the
proper time.  We, of course, assume that he does.  Anyway, the F
frame loop can't violate causality by the same argument that the
AB-CD loop can't.

> 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 ***

Au contraire, Prok.  You should be worried because you STILL haven't
grasped the complete picture.  I hope mansplaining it to you hasn't
gotten you any more upset.

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.