Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously throughout the universe?

Consider the distant observer in the Big Ben Paradox. In the standard telling of the BBP the distant observer is already traveling at .867c. But consider the distant observer at rest wrt the solar system and 2 light years away. The distant observer then quickly acquires a velocity of .867c relative to the solar system, as in the standard telling.

If the Principle of Relativity acts instantaneously then the distant observer will notice the slowing of the earth's orbital velocity after 1.133 years of the distant observer's proper time.

However, if the Principle of Relativity travels at the speed of light then the distant observer will not notice the slowing of the earth's orbital velocity until 1.9 years have passed for the distant observer.

On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
> Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
> throughout the universe?

The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
known to only be valid LOCALLY.

> [... more nonsense]

Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
to speed up, to this accelerating observer.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
> > throughout the universe?
> The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
> known to only be valid LOCALLY.
>
> > [... more nonsense]
>
> Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
> observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
> toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
> emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
> correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
> the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
> observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
> themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
> to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
>
> Tom Roberts
Now go to the part of the story where the planets start to slow down, along with all the clocks located on those planets.

Den 08.12.2023 20:50, skrev patdolan:
> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
>>> throughout the universe?
>> The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
>> known to only be valid LOCALLY.
>>
>>> [... more nonsense]
>>
>> Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
>> observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
>> toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
>> emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
>> correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
>> the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
>> observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
>> themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
>> to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
>>
>> Tom Roberts

> Now go to the part of the story where the planets start to slow down, along with all the clocks located on those planets.

What about the paradox that you can make a train whistle
change frequency just by observing the train as it passes?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously throughout the universe?
>
> Consider the distant observer in the Big Ben Paradox. In the standard telling of the BBP the distant observer is already traveling at .867c. But consider the distant observer at rest wrt the solar system and 2 light years away. The distant observer then quickly acquires a velocity of .867c relative to the solar system, as in the standard telling.
>
> If the Principle of Relativity acts instantaneously then the distant observer will notice the slowing of the earth's orbital velocity after 1.133 years of the distant observer's proper time.
>
> However, if the Principle of Relativity travels at the speed of light then the distant observer will not notice the slowing of the earth's orbital velocity until 1.9 years have passed for the distant observer.
Pat, I don't see that relativity has principles...

On 12/8/23 1:50 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
>>> Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
>>> throughout the universe?
>> The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which
>> is known to only be valid LOCALLY.
>>
>>> [... more nonsense]
>>
>> Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
>> observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and
>> accelerating toward it. They are continuously observing the solar
>> system via light emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the
>> Doppler shift increases correspondingly, and they observe that
>> LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows the planets speeding up (and
>> getting more blueshifted). Of course this observer does not affect
>> the solar system in any way: the planets themselves do not change
>> speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS to speed up, to this
>> accelerating observer.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> Now go to the part of the story where the planets start to slow
> down, along with all the clocks located on those planets.

There is no such "part" of any story. No matter how the distant observer
moves, or how they measure the solar system and its planets, they cannot
possibly make "the planets start to slow down, along with all the
clocks" -- that is just YOU MISUNDERSTANDING RELATIVITY.

Tom Roberts

On 12/8/23 8:54 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
> observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
> toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
> emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
> correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
> the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
> observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
> themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
> to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
>

The really interesting and important question is NOT about what the
images transmitted from the distant person tell the receiving object.
That information is old and extremely out-of-date, and really not of
much importance.

What the observing person REALLY wants to know is "what is the age of
that distant person "right now"? I.e., the most important and
interesting thing in special relativity is "NOW at a distance".

And "NOW at a distance" is important for accelerating observers as well
as for inertial observers ... it is important to understand how to
determine it for BOTH types of observers.

On 12/9/23 2:14 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

>
> The really interesting and important question is NOT about what the
> images transmitted from the distant person tell the receiving object.
> That information is old and extremely out-of-date, and really not of
> much importance.
>
> What the observing person REALLY wants to know is "what is the age of
> that distant person "right now"?  I.e., the most important and
> interesting thing in special relativity is "NOW at a distance".
>
> And "NOW at a distance" is important for accelerating observers as well
> as for inertial observers ... it is important to understand how to
> determine it for BOTH types of observers.
>

Since Tom Roberts hasn't responded to my above question "What is the age
of that distant person right now?", I'll answer it for him.

For an observer, whose current age is t1, and who is stationary in any
arbitrary (but specified) inertial reference frame, the current age t2
of some specified distant person (she) is just what the observer (he),
stationary in that inertial frame, who happens to be momentarily
co-located with her when he is age t1, says her age is then.

On 12/10/23 9:48 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> On 12/9/23 2:14 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>
> Since Tom Roberts hasn't responded to my above question "What is the age
> of that distant person right now?", I'll answer it for him.
>
> For an observer (call him Tom), whose current age is t1, and who is stationary in any
> arbitrary (but specified) inertial reference frame, the current age t2
> of some specified distant person (she) is just what the observer (he),
> stationary in that inertial frame, who happens to be momentarily
> co-located with her when he is age t1, says her age is then.
>

And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result, he
will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is 186,000
miles per second. So he (Tom Roberts) will be rejecting Special
Relativity itself.

On 12/10/23 11:39 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

>
> And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result, he
> will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
> Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is 186,000
> miles per second.
>

Because the only thing that the observers in that inertial reference
frame used to synchronize all of their clocks (which is the only thing
they use to determine the distant person's age) is that the speed of any
light pulse is 186,000 miles per second.

Mike Fontenot wrote:

> On 12/10/23 11:39 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>> And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result, he
>> will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
>> Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is 186,000
>> miles per second.
> Because the only thing that the observers in that inertial reference
> frame used to synchronize all of their clocks (which is the only thing
> they use to determine the distant person's age) is that the speed of any
> light pulse is 186,000 miles per second.

I don't get it. You can't »𝘀𝘆𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲« anything remote. You have to be
»𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹«. But watch this

𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗨𝗦_𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗘𝗹𝗼𝗻_𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗸_𝗶𝘀_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁?
A critic of the Kiev government, Gonzalo Lira is now awaiting trial in the
Ukrainian city of Kharkov
https://r%74.com/russia/588846-journalist-gonzalo-lira-ukraine/

He also criticized efforts by the Western media to portray Ukraine as a
“𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆”, according to 𝗘𝘇𝗿𝗮 𝗣𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱, a democracy is now currently defined
in Europe as '𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆_𝗿𝘂𝗻_𝗯𝘆_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀'.

Russia should take over Kharkov and free Gonzalo Lira. I hope so too!

When American drug smugglers or blatant spooks are arrested in Russia,
Biden admin jumps up and down every single day claiming they are
"𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱". They are in contact constantly with the family. There
are 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 about their status. And yet with Lira there is
nothing. Tells you everything about US "concern" for their own. The US has
𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆.

All 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗸 has to do is 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘇𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗺, or 𝘀𝗵𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝗳

In the West, you don't get put in prison for telling lies, you get put in
prison 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵.

Did Musk visit the organ harvesting industries?

A "shady" character from the get go?... a probable CIA asset that popped
out of nowhere with the purpose of acquiring names/identifications of
Russian sympathizers? Smoke and mirrors.

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
> > throughout the universe?
> The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
> known to only be valid LOCALLY.
>
> > [... more nonsense]
>
> Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
> observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
> toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
> emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
> correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
> the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
> observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
> themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
> to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
>
> Tom Roberts

Wow, man, Dr. Roberts, when you say that with the emphasis,
"SR, which is known to only be valid LOCALLY", I really appreciate
that, because it's lost on most people.

It's really an important part of the hedge the LOCALLY.
Also it's stood up.

What you do is arrange something like a binary pulsar,
and set it up as a sort of "warp shroud", anyways you
eject it, as it results a sort of "guide lode", then it
results actually possible to read out it the moment it happens,
though, it takes an arbitrarily long time to setup.

I.e. information doesn't travel faster than the range of
an organization, that later it can be interpreted either
way when it ends, at the big end.

Yeah, I know that in natural units that's an absurdity.
But, the L principle light's speed's constancy, and its
maximality, in the one theory with the natural units where
it's "0, for zero, 1, for infinity", has that it's sort of in the middle,
about half, say, light's speed c for "gravity's speed" c_g.

The mass/energy equivalency, is about the greatest of
Einstein's concepts, along with a non-zero but vanishing
cosmological constant.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:05:19 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
> > > throughout the universe?
> > The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
> > known to only be valid LOCALLY.
> >
> > > [... more nonsense]
> >
> > Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
> > observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
> > toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
> > emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
> > correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
> > the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
> > observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
> > themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
> > to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Wow, man, Dr. Roberts, when you say that with the emphasis,
> "SR, which is known to only be valid LOCALLY", I really appreciate
> that, because it's lost on most people.
>
> It's really an important part of the hedge the LOCALLY.
> Also it's stood up.
>
>
> What you do is arrange something like a binary pulsar,
> and set it up as a sort of "warp shroud", anyways you
> eject it, as it results a sort of "guide lode", then it
> results actually possible to read out it the moment it happens,
> though, it takes an arbitrarily long time to setup.
>
> I.e. information doesn't travel faster than the range of
> an organization, that later it can be interpreted either
> way when it ends, at the big end.
>
>
> Yeah, I know that in natural units that's an absurdity.
> But, the L principle light's speed's constancy, and its
> maximality, in the one theory with the natural units where
> it's "0, for zero, 1, for infinity", has that it's sort of in the middle,
> about half, say, light's speed c for "gravity's speed" c_g.
>
> The mass/energy equivalency, is about the greatest of
> Einstein's concepts, along with a non-zero but vanishing
> cosmological constant.
Ross, when Tom Roberts says that a particular theory (any theory) is known to be valid only locally, he is admitting that it is falsified globally. Now Ross, please remember that the Truth is true globally. Any truth that is only true locally goes by the name: falsity. Have I made myself sufficiently clear? And do you have home invasion robberies yet out in Redmond? Legion?

On 12/10/2023 5:29 PM, Cresencio Nurmuhametov Pasternak wrote:
> Mike Fontenot wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/23 11:39 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>>> And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result, he
>>> will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
>>> Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is 186,000
>>> miles per second.
>> Because the only thing that the observers in that inertial reference
>> frame used to synchronize all of their clocks (which is the only thing
>> they use to determine the distant person's age) is that the speed of any
>> light pulse is 186,000 miles per second.
>
> I don't get it. You can't »𝘀𝘆𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲« anything remote. You have to be
> »𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹«. But watch this
>
> 𝗪𝗵𝗼_𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗨𝗦_𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗘𝗹𝗼𝗻_𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗸_𝗶𝘀_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁?
> A critic of the Kiev government, Gonzalo Lira is now awaiting trial in the
> Ukrainian city of Kharkov
> https://r%74.com/russia/588846-journalist-gonzalo-lira-ukraine/
>
> He also criticized efforts by the Western media to portray Ukraine as a
> “𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆”, according to 𝗘𝘇𝗿𝗮 𝗣𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱, a democracy is now currently defined
> in Europe as '𝗮_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆_𝗿𝘂𝗻_𝗯𝘆_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀'.
>
> Russia should take over Kharkov and free Gonzalo Lira. I hope so too!
>
> When American drug smugglers or blatant spooks are arrested in Russia,
> Biden admin jumps up and down every single day claiming they are
> "𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆_𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱". They are in contact constantly with the family. There
> are 𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 about their status. And yet with Lira there is
> nothing. Tells you everything about US "concern" for their own. The US has
> 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆.
>
> All 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗸 has to do is 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘇𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗺, or 𝘀𝗵𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝗳
>
> In the West, you don't get put in prison for telling lies, you get put in
> prison 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵.
>
> Did Musk visit the organ harvesting industries?
>
> A "shady" character from the get go?... a probable CIA asset that popped
> out of nowhere with the purpose of acquiring names/identifications of
> Russian sympathizers? Smoke and mirrors.

Hanson, forget the jounalist, tell us what are the trainee Iranian
scientists and engineers doing inside Kurchatov Institute of all the
places on Earth :-)

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:32:09 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:05:19 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
> > > > throughout the universe?
> > > The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
> > > known to only be valid LOCALLY.
> > >
> > > > [... more nonsense]
> > >
> > > Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
> > > observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
> > > toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
> > > emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
> > > correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
> > > the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
> > > observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
> > > themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
> > > to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > Wow, man, Dr. Roberts, when you say that with the emphasis,
> > "SR, which is known to only be valid LOCALLY", I really appreciate
> > that, because it's lost on most people.
> >
> > It's really an important part of the hedge the LOCALLY.
> > Also it's stood up.
> >
> >
> > What you do is arrange something like a binary pulsar,
> > and set it up as a sort of "warp shroud", anyways you
> > eject it, as it results a sort of "guide lode", then it
> > results actually possible to read out it the moment it happens,
> > though, it takes an arbitrarily long time to setup.
> >
> > I.e. information doesn't travel faster than the range of
> > an organization, that later it can be interpreted either
> > way when it ends, at the big end.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I know that in natural units that's an absurdity.
> > But, the L principle light's speed's constancy, and its
> > maximality, in the one theory with the natural units where
> > it's "0, for zero, 1, for infinity", has that it's sort of in the middle,
> > about half, say, light's speed c for "gravity's speed" c_g.
> >
> > The mass/energy equivalency, is about the greatest of
> > Einstein's concepts, along with a non-zero but vanishing
> > cosmological constant.
> Ross, when Tom Roberts says that a particular theory (any theory) is known to be valid only locally, he is admitting that it is falsified globally. Now Ross, please remember that the Truth is true globally. Any truth that is only true locally goes by the name: falsity. Have I made myself sufficiently clear? And do you have home invasion robberies yet out in Redmond? Legion?

No, Patty, that's wrong, because what it means is the spaces all around where the
light is traveling, are each local also.

The point, local, global, total, have that these days SR is local and GR is global.

Then, in terms of theory, overall, and "truth" or true theory,
I hope you've brought along an entire foundations of logic
and mathematics to help support what for philosophy's sake
would be some ideal foundation of a, "true theory", "a theory".

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 5:43:35 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:32:09 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:05:19 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
> > > > > throughout the universe?
> > > > The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
> > > > known to only be valid LOCALLY.
> > > >
> > > > > [... more nonsense]
> > > >
> > > > Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
> > > > observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
> > > > toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
> > > > emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
> > > > correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
> > > > the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
> > > > observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
> > > > themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
> > > > to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts
> > > Wow, man, Dr. Roberts, when you say that with the emphasis,
> > > "SR, which is known to only be valid LOCALLY", I really appreciate
> > > that, because it's lost on most people.
> > >
> > > It's really an important part of the hedge the LOCALLY.
> > > Also it's stood up.
> > >
> > >
> > > What you do is arrange something like a binary pulsar,
> > > and set it up as a sort of "warp shroud", anyways you
> > > eject it, as it results a sort of "guide lode", then it
> > > results actually possible to read out it the moment it happens,
> > > though, it takes an arbitrarily long time to setup.
> > >
> > > I.e. information doesn't travel faster than the range of
> > > an organization, that later it can be interpreted either
> > > way when it ends, at the big end.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, I know that in natural units that's an absurdity.
> > > But, the L principle light's speed's constancy, and its
> > > maximality, in the one theory with the natural units where
> > > it's "0, for zero, 1, for infinity", has that it's sort of in the middle,
> > > about half, say, light's speed c for "gravity's speed" c_g.
> > >
> > > The mass/energy equivalency, is about the greatest of
> > > Einstein's concepts, along with a non-zero but vanishing
> > > cosmological constant.
> > Ross, when Tom Roberts says that a particular theory (any theory) is known to be valid only locally, he is admitting that it is falsified globally.. Now Ross, please remember that the Truth is true globally. Any truth that is only true locally goes by the name: falsity. Have I made myself sufficiently clear? And do you have home invasion robberies yet out in Redmond? Legion?
> No, Patty, that's wrong, because what it means is the spaces all around where the
> light is traveling, are each local also.
>
> The point, local, global, total, have that these days SR is local and GR is global.
>
> Then, in terms of theory, overall, and "truth" or true theory,
> I hope you've brought along an entire foundations of logic
> and mathematics to help support what for philosophy's sake
> would be some ideal foundation of a, "true theory", "a theory".
Jn 18:38

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 6:41:45 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 5:43:35 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:32:09 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:05:19 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:54:13 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > On 11/9/23 12:21 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > Or does the Principle of Relativity operate instantaneously
> > > > > > throughout the universe?
> > > > > The question does not make sense, as the PoR is part of SR, which is
> > > > > known to only be valid LOCALLY.
> > > > >
> > > > > > [... more nonsense]
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's ignore the nonsense of the 'BBP', and just consider a distant
> > > > > observer starting at rest relative to the solar system, and accelerating
> > > > > toward it. They are continuously observing the solar system via light
> > > > > emitted by it. As they increase velocity, the Doppler shift increases
> > > > > correspondingly, and they observe that LIGHT FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM shows
> > > > > the planets speeding up (and getting more blueshifted). Of course this
> > > > > observer does not affect the solar system in any way: the planets
> > > > > themselves do not change speed, it is only LIGHT from them that APPEARS
> > > > > to speed up, to this accelerating observer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > Wow, man, Dr. Roberts, when you say that with the emphasis,
> > > > "SR, which is known to only be valid LOCALLY", I really appreciate
> > > > that, because it's lost on most people.
> > > >
> > > > It's really an important part of the hedge the LOCALLY.
> > > > Also it's stood up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What you do is arrange something like a binary pulsar,
> > > > and set it up as a sort of "warp shroud", anyways you
> > > > eject it, as it results a sort of "guide lode", then it
> > > > results actually possible to read out it the moment it happens,
> > > > though, it takes an arbitrarily long time to setup.
> > > >
> > > > I.e. information doesn't travel faster than the range of
> > > > an organization, that later it can be interpreted either
> > > > way when it ends, at the big end.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I know that in natural units that's an absurdity.
> > > > But, the L principle light's speed's constancy, and its
> > > > maximality, in the one theory with the natural units where
> > > > it's "0, for zero, 1, for infinity", has that it's sort of in the middle,
> > > > about half, say, light's speed c for "gravity's speed" c_g.
> > > >
> > > > The mass/energy equivalency, is about the greatest of
> > > > Einstein's concepts, along with a non-zero but vanishing
> > > > cosmological constant.
> > > Ross, when Tom Roberts says that a particular theory (any theory) is known to be valid only locally, he is admitting that it is falsified globally. Now Ross, please remember that the Truth is true globally. Any truth that is only true locally goes by the name: falsity. Have I made myself sufficiently clear? And do you have home invasion robberies yet out in Redmond? Legion?
> > No, Patty, that's wrong, because what it means is the spaces all around where the
> > light is traveling, are each local also.
> >
> > The point, local, global, total, have that these days SR is local and GR is global.
> >
> > Then, in terms of theory, overall, and "truth" or true theory,
> > I hope you've brought along an entire foundations of logic
> > and mathematics to help support what for philosophy's sake
> > would be some ideal foundation of a, "true theory", "a theory".
> Jn 18:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BNDx-FUwKM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVOLO1ryGQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3

I'm getting worried about Tom Roberts. He's never been this
unresponsive in the many decades that I've known him. Something's wrong.

On 12/9/23 3:14 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> The really interesting and important question is NOT about what the
> images transmitted from the distant person tell the receiving
> object. That information is old and extremely out-of-date, and really
> not of much importance.

But it is what the observer (your "receiving object") sees. Yes, this is
not of much importance.

> What the observing person REALLY wants to know is "what is the age
> of that distant person "right now"? I.e., the most important and
> interesting thing in special relativity is "NOW at a distance".

Only to someone like you who has obsessed over this for decades. To the
rest of us, we recognize that no matter how one answers that question,
the result is conventional, and different conventions yield different
answers.

IOW: there is no definitive answer to that question, there are only
OPINIONS.

And of course this simultaneity at a distance does not appear in any
model of physics. It is just idle speculation by people who should know
better.

My OPINION is that the most appropriate "current age of a distant
person" is the age they have in their own rest frame, extended to the
location of the distant observer. This, of course, ignores the
difficulties inherent in doing that extension....

> And "NOW at a distance" is important for accelerating observers as
> well as for inertial observers ... it is important to understand how
> to determine it for BOTH types of observers.

Accelerating observers have even less need for this information -- there
are more possible conventions, and thus more possible answers.

For them, I hold the same OPINION as above.

> Since Tom Roberts hasn't responded to my above question "What is the
> age of that distant person right now?", I'll answer it for him.

DON'T DO THAT!!! You are not competent to answer for me. What you
"think" I would say is utterly ridiculous.

I have repeatedly said this sort of question is useless, meaningless, or
both. And I have repeatedly given my OPINION for this
useless/meaningless question.

> For an observer, whose current age is t1, and who is stationary in
> any arbitrary (but specified) inertial reference frame, the current
> age t2 of some specified distant person (she) is just what the
> observer (he), stationary in that inertial frame, who happens to be
> momentarily co-located with her when he is age t1, says her age is
> then.

This is utterly useless, as an observer far away from earth will not
have a co-moving assistant at t2. The only exception is if the distant
observer is essentially at rest in the same inertial frame as the earth
[#], in which case the answer is trivial and obvious.

[#] The earth, of course, is not at rest in any
inertial frame. But conceptually, with speeds
approaching c involved, the inertial frame of the
solar-system barycenter is close enough for all
practical purposes.

> And if that inertial observer (aka Tom Roberts) ignores that result,
> he will be refusing to accept the fundamental assumption of Special
> Relativity: that the speed of light, in ANY inertial frame, is
> 186,000 miles per second. So he (Tom Roberts) will be rejecting
> Special Relativity itself.

Such nonsense YOU write. Sure, an inertial observer could use the
simultaneity of their rest frame, or the simultaneity of earth's rest
frame [3]. But still, the result is not useful, especially in the sense
that such a result does not appear in any law of physics (all of which
are LOCAL).

> I'm getting worried about Tom Roberts. He's never been this
> unresponsive in the many decades that I've known him. Something's
> wrong.

Worry about yourself, not me. I have been very busy.

Tom Roberts

On 12/10/23 6:32 PM, patdolan wrote:
> Owhen Tom Roberts says that a particular theory (any theory) is known
> to be valid only locally, he is admitting that it is falsified
> globally.

Yes.

> please remember that the Truth is true globally.

The "Truth", as you mean it, is forever hidden to us humans.

All we can do is make models and successively improve them as new
observations are made. Every model inherently has a limited domain in
which it is applicable, and at present we know that the local laws of
physics are quantum in nature, but how to generalize them to global laws
is not at all known; nor is it known how to apply quantum concepts to
gravitation....

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. Your GUESSES are wrong.

Tom Roberts

On 12/11/23 10:49 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
[...]
>

All of your misguided conclusions about inertial reference frames in
special relativity stem from a single mistake: you've apparently never
really understood what Einstein showed us about inertial reference frames.

Einstein showed us how all the clocks in a given inertial reference
frame can be synchronized. The people stationary in the given frame
start out by knowing that all the clocks in their frame tick at the same
rate. They can then use the FACT, that the speed of any light pulse in
their frame is 186,000 miles per second, to synchronize all their clocks
... i.e., so that at any instant in that frame, all their clocks display
the same time . And we can also specify that stationary and co-located
with each clock in that frame is a human observer ... call him the
"helper" for that clock.

THEN, if the people stationary in the given inertial frame want to know
the age of a specific distant person at some arbitrary (but specified)
instant on the given clocks in their frame (say, time t1 in their
frame), all they need to do is ask the particular helper, who happens to
be momentarily co-located with the the distant person when that helper's
watch reads t1, what the distant person's age was then. That helper can
determine the answer to that question merely by looking at her, because
they are momentarily eye-to-eye then.

The point is, the question of the current age of a distance person is
NOT discretionary for anyone stationary in the given inertial frame ...
they MUST use the answer obtained above. Any OTHER answer requires that
the speed of light in the given frame CAN'T be 186,000 miles per second,
and if THAT is true, then special relativity isn't true.

On 12/11/23 12:39 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 9:55:54 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The "Truth", as you mean it, is forever hidden to us humans.
>
> Then how can you talk about it.

I don't. I discuss MODELS, not "Truth".

> Prove it is an unknown.

Just look at all the models we have.

> Science claims it has the truth...

No. You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 03:41:08 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/11/23 12:39 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 9:55:54 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> The "Truth", as you mean it, is forever hidden to us humans.
> >
> > Then how can you talk about it.
> I don't. I discuss MODELS, not "Truth".

What an idiot. So - "The "Truth", as you mean it,
is forever hidden to us humans" - is not the truth
for you?

> > Prove it is an unknown.
> Just look at all the models we have.

Oh, your foolish little nightmares. They're
only demonstrating how incompetent you
are when creating and maintaining models.

> > Science claims it has the truth...
> No. You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.

He should, but not from you, poor halfbrain.

On 12/11/23 3:55 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> On 12/11/23 10:49 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [...]
>
> All of your misguided conclusions about inertial reference frames in
> special relativity stem from a single mistake: you've apparently
> never really understood what Einstein showed us about inertial
> reference frames.

Nonsense. My conclusions are not "misguided", and I understand fully
what Einstein showed.

> Einstein showed us how all the clocks in a given inertial reference
> frame can be synchronized.

Sure.

> THEN, if the people stationary in the given inertial frame want to
> know the age of a specific distant person at some arbitrary (but
> specified) instant on the given clocks in their frame (say, time t1
> in their frame), all they need to do is ask the particular helper,
> who happens to be momentarily co-located with the the distant person
> when that helper's watch reads t1, what the distant person's age was
> then. That helper can determine the answer to that question merely
> by looking at her, because they are momentarily eye-to-eye then.

Sure, _IF_ there is such a helper at that location. But it is only in
your fantasy world that such a helper will be available to a distant
observer moving with an appreciable fraction of c relative to earth.
Indeed the only frame in which I can imagine such a helper is in the
rest frame of earth [#], and it will take a long time to communicate
with them.

[#] At that scale the earth is essentially at rest in
the inertial frame of the solar system barycenter.

> [... insisting on using a specific frame just because he wishes it]

In the imaginary distant future in which spacefaring is possible at
speeds approaching c, such astronauts will know that the question "How
old are people on earth right now? (Really "what year is it now on
earth?") has meaning only when they are at rest in the same inertial
frame as earth. Even then they must make approximations and ignore MANY
issues. Necessarily they will need to use information available in their
ship to compute the answer, which means they must keep track of their
speed relative to earth's rest frame, and use that to compute how their
clock accumulate time compared to clocks on earth.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday 14 December 2023 at 02:19:34 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/11/23 3:55 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > On 12/11/23 10:49 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > All of your misguided conclusions about inertial reference frames in
> > special relativity stem from a single mistake: you've apparently
> > never really understood what Einstein showed us about inertial
> > reference frames.
> Nonsense. My conclusions are not "misguided", and I understand fully
> what Einstein showed.

Oh, the mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consisted, it was demonstrated here
many times. Of course, you've understood
correctly the most important thing: THE
BEST WAY we're FORCED to.