On 12/25/2023 1:04 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:

> But in the Wiki article, it says that the initial inertial observers
> (the IIO's) say the separation is constant, AND the Wiki article says
> that the rockets are identical (i.e., that the two rockets are
> undergoing equal acceleration according to their accelerometers, so
> their separation is constant, according to the people on the rockets).
> That VIOLATES the LCE, so the Wiki article is WRONG.

The initial observers see the rockets go faster and faster and are
subject to length contraction, as is the string. The string contracts in
length but the separation remains the same, therefore (according to
them) the string breaks.

That's one thing I think is cool about SR. Different observers get the
same result but for different reasons. One observer observes the string
length contracting and breaking, another observer observes the rockets
getting farther apart and the string breaking.

On 12/25/23 2:25 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> [... more confusion and errors]

I repeat:
Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
post, and its [@] footnote.)

Tom Roberts

The length contraction equation (LCE) says that any inertial observer
(she) will measure the length of a yardstick that is moving away from
her to be getting shorter, by the factor gamma. Two separated rockets
with the same accelerometer readings are no different than the yardstick
as far as the LCE is concerned.

You still owe me a response to this:
__________________________________________

You agreed with this:

"the Wiki article says that the rockets are identical (i.e., that the
two rockets are undergoing
equal acceleration according to their accelerometers,"

And yet you disagreed with this:

"so their separation is constant, according to the people on the rockets)."

So you seem to be saying that when the two rockets are undergoing equal
accelerations, their separation isn't constant.

If that IS what you're saying, I certainly don't agree.

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:31:14 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 12/23/23 6:13 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > > > > In [the Bell paradox scenario], [...] the accelerometers on the two
> > > > > rockets will show different accelerations
> > > > This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Equal proper accelerations is stipulated in
> > > > the setup. (IOW: the rockets are identical.)
> > > >
> > > > Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
> > > > can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
> > > > at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
> > > > trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
> > > > post, and its [@] footnote.)
> > > >
> > > > You are apparently too invested in your mistakes to re-think this and
> > > > resolve your errors. Your problem, not mine.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts
> > > I wonder, let's say you put "the theory" on a timeline down the decades.
> > >
> > > So, from 1900, there's electron physics, and, 1905, annus mirabilis, so every five years
> > > or so, there's an, ..., improvement, to the theory.
> > >
> > > So, not all the improvements, are compatible or sympatico, with the existing ones.
> > > For example that "relativity is classical in the limit" or along these lines, it's "conservative",
> > > while not compatible, is, "non-conservative", conservative in the sense of not really
> > > changing the theory, vis-a-vis conservation in the usual sense meaning invariant theory
> > > and symmetry laws and Noether's theorem and conserved quantities.
> > >
> > > The Copenhagen interpretation or the stochastic model for the statistical ensemble is
> > > an example, then about Bohm-de Broglie and real wave mechanics of wave collapse,
> > > in events. Similarly resonance theory for the molecular and the differences between
> > > atomic and molecular is an example of this kind of thing.
> > >
> > > For relativity then the big deal seems about that SR is local. This wasn't in effect for
> > > lots of interpretations, so now they would be seen as, ..., well, "wrong" is pretty strong,
> > > but, no longer in effect, altogether.
> > >
> > > Something like asymptotic freedom or that time symmetry is the only thing not shown
> > > falsified, these are pretty major touchstones on the evolution of the theory, and the
> > > fact that the popular accounts are usually quite a ways behind the novel accounts,
> > > and also not necessarily at all reflecting, the practical accounts.
> > >
> > > Then, re-visiting the definitions and derivations, also result, revisiting the data. The
> > > data was gathered and tabulated according to the interpretation, about what it is.
> > >
> > > So, re-visiting or re-thinking the theory, here has the benefit of this, and the challenge
> > > of it, interpreting experiment as it's evolved in configuration and energy over time,
> > > and, according to what were the pronounced and exoteric theories, and especially,
> > > the practical or esoteric theories, is for dragging those out and helping people understand
> > > how and why the opinions changed, so they don't feel disserved or basically so
> > > that they don't distrust or dispute the competence, of, big and primary science.
> > >
> > > Of course I'm kind of a personal aggrandizer myself and sort of really only trust
> > > theory for its own sake to make the best mathematical interpretation how then
> > > it's simplest to assign it clearest physical interpretations.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, when there's "wall-papering", onto the theory, instead of "re-thinking",
> > > it, from first theoretical principles establishing the surrounds of the definitions
> > > and their derivations, I have feelings like "those people are incompetents and
> > > don't know bubkus, and their latest wall-papering after coat-tailing, is not,
> > > "quality construction".
> > >
> > > Or, you know, "a theoretical physicist thinks this".
> > >
> > > So, whose problem is that?
> > One can say the same for mathematics and about the "standard" and "non-standard"
> > in mathematics, and the conservative and non-conservative, about continuum mechanics,
> > and, especially, what mathematics _owes_ physics, if physics, is to have sufficient correct
> > mathematical models, which of course automatically equip physical models, of the
> > attachments of physical models to mathematical models.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZXq-UqCdA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=31
> >
> > Even defining a "continuous domain" today gets quite involved for measure theory,
> > then for these very interesting things in the interface between the discrete and continuous,
> > which would very well advise the conceit of the particle in quantum mechanics, and
> > why superstring theory is just a thing in continuum analysis, about doubling and halving,
> > the doubling-measures, doubling-spaces, angle-doubling, and so on, which are
> > quite, "real", mathematically, and mathematics is sort of short, owing physics.
> >
> > So, better theory in physics involves any rehabilitations of mathematics, also.
> >
> > It's a continuum mechanics, ....
> >
> > Voice stress analysis is a sort of scientific approach to establish perceived veracity.
> Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", "Things and their place in theories"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine%E2%80%93Putnam_indispensability_argument
>
> "Putnam's Quibbles on Quine, pointless"
>
>
>
> Paul Dirac gives a lecture, starting about why theoretical physicists are people.
>
> "The wave function Psi is interpreted as referring to a physical state."
>
> "Some physicists have always objected to that probability interpretation. ..."
> "... One has to accept it. One cannot improve on it."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci86Aps7CMo
>
> "We can no longer just shut our eyes to the negative energy states."
> (While it's still all positive probabilities, ..., as for what events.)
>
> "... there is a further doubling ...".
>
> (Dirac explains where positrons come from, also electron holes.)
>
>
> De Broglie talks about electron waves.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stRrf4DB_3Y
>
> I especially enjoyed the interview with de Broglie at the Paris Academy with the bust of Fresnel.
>
> They're actually both pretty right. People saying Dirac and de Broglie are at odds are underinformed.
> Theorists not pulling them back together are just, well, they're stepping off.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgXYvaSfFdE
>
> "Present day theoretical physics is not in a satisfactory state." -- Dirac
>
> "Most physicists say that we can turn a blind eye toward the infinities, ....,
> cutting out artificially the infinities, ... I feel very unhappy about it.. ...
> Mathematics does not allow you to discard infinities just when they
> don't suit you. ... I think I'm pretty well alone among physicists this way,
> ..., but I'm hoping, ...." -- Dirac
>
> "... resignation physics ...". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Touschek#/media/File:Bruno_Touschek.jpg
>
>
> Merry Christmas

I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.

He laughs then with his "how high I am" and "why worry" and it's like "you're finite, Feynman".

His world of ammoniac salts is of a _false_, bravado. It's like when Dirac says
"it's hard to find people brave enough to be monumental physicists", Feynman's
a sort of showman.

I like Feynman, and he's got a lot of bits in his bag, and he's a decent explicator
when he isn't just blowing smoke, but after something like sum-of-histories
and the path integral that I associate with him, and are real, and formalisms
associated with scattering and tunneling in quantum theory, and electrodynamics
and chromodynamics, which are real, it's like that's a pretty good example of a
problem-solver and a calculator with a repertoire of approximations on the surface.
I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.

On 12/26/23 10:52 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> The length contraction equation (LCE) says that any inertial observer
> (she) will measure the length of a yardstick that is moving away from
> her to be getting shorter, by the factor gamma.

Yes, when she measures it using standard rulers at rest in her frame,
marking the endpoints simultaneously in her frame. Because the yardstick
is executing Born rigid motion [#].

[#] If the yardstick does not execute Born rigid motion,
it is no longer a yardstick.

> Two separated rockets with the same accelerometer readings are no
> different than the yardstick as far as the LCE is concerned.

Not true. You are applying a statement valid for inertial motion to
the accelerating rockets. THAT'S INVALID.

In particular, you are assuming the rockets execute Born rigid motion,
like a yardstick would do [#], when they DON'T:

The yardstick's leading end has a smaller proper acceleration
than its trailing end, as required for Born rigid motion with
acceleration along an axis; the rockets, on the other hand,
have equal proper accelerations.

You MUST do this exercise:
Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
post, and its [@] footnote.)

SR asserts the only different between their trajectories,
measured in the initial inertial frame as a function of
its time coordinate, is their constant separation.
IOW: their trajectories have the same shape in that frame.

> So you seem to be saying that when the two rockets are undergoing
> equal accelerations, their separation isn't constant.

YOU KEEP DOING THIS, AND IT TURNS WHATEVER YOU SAY INTO NONSENSE. You
MUST specify which frame you are discussing.

I am saying that their separation IN THE INITIAL INERTIAL FRAME is
constant, and therefore their separation in successive instantaneously
co-moving frames of either rocket cannot be constant.

You just keep repeating the same mistakes, so from now on I am just
going to repeat the above exercise, until you attempt to do it.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 11:52:40 AM UTC-5, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> The length contraction equation (LCE) says that any inertial observer
> (she) will measure the length of a yardstick that is moving away from
> her to be getting shorter, by the factor gamma.

That is not true and very poorly stated.
SR says that the *inertial* yardstick will be measured shorter (by the gamma factor).
If the stick is *accelerated*, it can get longer, shorter, various lengths etc.
If its pushed it is 'squished'. If its pulled, its elongated. When it becomes inertial, then all
internal forces (stress/strains/fields) level out in such a way that the stick is Lorentz Contracted (LC).

Recall that SR says that nothing is perfectly rigid (because the laws of physics say so).
Therefore, if the acceleration of the stick is too great, it breaks. If not too great, there are transient
strains.

> Two separated rockets with the same accelerometer readings are
> no different than the yardstick

Wrong; they are quite different. It is posited that the rockets are forcing, pulling the rope (or stick)
beyond its integrity, and breaks. This is not posited in the usual stick scenario where the stick is LC.
They are two completely different scenarios; they are posed quite differently.

What Tom was claiming is correct.

On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 22:38:59 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/26/23 10:52 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > The length contraction equation (LCE) says that any inertial observer
> > (she) will measure the length of a yardstick that is moving away from
> > her to be getting shorter, by the factor gamma.
> Yes, when she measures it using standard rulers

Tom, poor halfbrain, what is the longest "standard ruler"
you've ever seen? Which century do you live in?

The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial observers
think. The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on their
rockets show the same readings, and that the separation between the
rockets doesn't change.

On Wednesday 27 December 2023 at 14:51:44 UTC+1, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial observers
> think. The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on their
> rockets show the same readings, and that the separation between the
> rockets doesn't change.

The people of gedankens always care about what
the gedanking idiot is gedanking they should care
about.
People of the real world are different, however;
they usually care improperly. Fools! They
can't understand that the gedanking idiot
knows better what they should care about,
because The Nature itself has spoken to
him and revealed its Laws to him.

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:51:44 AM UTC-5, Mike Fontenot wrote:

> The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on their
> rockets show the same readings,

Correct, as posited by the scenario.

> and that the separation between the
> rockets doesn't change.

This is not what they observe. They observe, measure, that the other is getting further & further, that
their separation increases. (Using the usual meaning of 'measure' in these contexts).

On Wednesday 27 December 2023 at 15:26:12 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:51:44 AM UTC-5, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>
> > The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on their
> > rockets show the same readings,
> Correct, as posited by the scenario.
> > and that the separation between the
> > rockets doesn't change.
> This is not what they observe. They observe, measure, that the other is getting further & further, that
> their separation increases. (Using the usual meaning of 'measure' in these contexts).

Nope, they measure nothing. Their measurements,
their rockets and themself - is nothing but
some sick imagination of a poor, fanatic idiot.

On 12/27/23 7:51 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial observers
> think.  The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on their
> rockets show the same readings, and that the separation between the
> rockets doesn't change.

Except to them their separation does change.

Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
post, and its [@] footnote.)

SR asserts the only different between their trajectories,
measured in the initial inertial frame as a function of
its time coordinate, is their constant separation.
IOW: their trajectories have the same shape in that frame.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday 27 December 2023 at 15:39:39 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/27/23 7:51 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial observers
> > think. The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on their
> > rockets show the same readings, and that the separation between the
> > rockets doesn't change.
> Except to them their separation does change.

Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
Oh, that's because you're an idiot physicist.

On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 10:21:33 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:31:14 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > On 12/23/23 6:13 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > > > > > In [the Bell paradox scenario], [...] the accelerometers on the two
> > > > > > rockets will show different accelerations
> > > > > This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Equal proper accelerations is stipulated in
> > > > > the setup. (IOW: the rockets are identical.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
> > > > > can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
> > > > > at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
> > > > > trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
> > > > > post, and its [@] footnote.)
> > > > >
> > > > > You are apparently too invested in your mistakes to re-think this and
> > > > > resolve your errors. Your problem, not mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > I wonder, let's say you put "the theory" on a timeline down the decades.
> > > >
> > > > So, from 1900, there's electron physics, and, 1905, annus mirabilis, so every five years
> > > > or so, there's an, ..., improvement, to the theory.
> > > >
> > > > So, not all the improvements, are compatible or sympatico, with the existing ones.
> > > > For example that "relativity is classical in the limit" or along these lines, it's "conservative",
> > > > while not compatible, is, "non-conservative", conservative in the sense of not really
> > > > changing the theory, vis-a-vis conservation in the usual sense meaning invariant theory
> > > > and symmetry laws and Noether's theorem and conserved quantities.
> > > >
> > > > The Copenhagen interpretation or the stochastic model for the statistical ensemble is
> > > > an example, then about Bohm-de Broglie and real wave mechanics of wave collapse,
> > > > in events. Similarly resonance theory for the molecular and the differences between
> > > > atomic and molecular is an example of this kind of thing.
> > > >
> > > > For relativity then the big deal seems about that SR is local. This wasn't in effect for
> > > > lots of interpretations, so now they would be seen as, ..., well, "wrong" is pretty strong,
> > > > but, no longer in effect, altogether.
> > > >
> > > > Something like asymptotic freedom or that time symmetry is the only thing not shown
> > > > falsified, these are pretty major touchstones on the evolution of the theory, and the
> > > > fact that the popular accounts are usually quite a ways behind the novel accounts,
> > > > and also not necessarily at all reflecting, the practical accounts.
> > > >
> > > > Then, re-visiting the definitions and derivations, also result, revisiting the data. The
> > > > data was gathered and tabulated according to the interpretation, about what it is.
> > > >
> > > > So, re-visiting or re-thinking the theory, here has the benefit of this, and the challenge
> > > > of it, interpreting experiment as it's evolved in configuration and energy over time,
> > > > and, according to what were the pronounced and exoteric theories, and especially,
> > > > the practical or esoteric theories, is for dragging those out and helping people understand
> > > > how and why the opinions changed, so they don't feel disserved or basically so
> > > > that they don't distrust or dispute the competence, of, big and primary science.
> > > >
> > > > Of course I'm kind of a personal aggrandizer myself and sort of really only trust
> > > > theory for its own sake to make the best mathematical interpretation how then
> > > > it's simplest to assign it clearest physical interpretations.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, when there's "wall-papering", onto the theory, instead of "re-thinking",
> > > > it, from first theoretical principles establishing the surrounds of the definitions
> > > > and their derivations, I have feelings like "those people are incompetents and
> > > > don't know bubkus, and their latest wall-papering after coat-tailing, is not,
> > > > "quality construction".
> > > >
> > > > Or, you know, "a theoretical physicist thinks this".
> > > >
> > > > So, whose problem is that?
> > > One can say the same for mathematics and about the "standard" and "non-standard"
> > > in mathematics, and the conservative and non-conservative, about continuum mechanics,
> > > and, especially, what mathematics _owes_ physics, if physics, is to have sufficient correct
> > > mathematical models, which of course automatically equip physical models, of the
> > > attachments of physical models to mathematical models.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZXq-UqCdA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=31
> > >
> > > Even defining a "continuous domain" today gets quite involved for measure theory,
> > > then for these very interesting things in the interface between the discrete and continuous,
> > > which would very well advise the conceit of the particle in quantum mechanics, and
> > > why superstring theory is just a thing in continuum analysis, about doubling and halving,
> > > the doubling-measures, doubling-spaces, angle-doubling, and so on, which are
> > > quite, "real", mathematically, and mathematics is sort of short, owing physics.
> > >
> > > So, better theory in physics involves any rehabilitations of mathematics, also.
> > >
> > > It's a continuum mechanics, ....
> > >
> > > Voice stress analysis is a sort of scientific approach to establish perceived veracity.
> > Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", "Things and their place in theories"
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine%E2%80%93Putnam_indispensability_argument
> >
> > "Putnam's Quibbles on Quine, pointless"
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Dirac gives a lecture, starting about why theoretical physicists are people.
> >
> > "The wave function Psi is interpreted as referring to a physical state."
> >
> > "Some physicists have always objected to that probability interpretation. ..."
> > "... One has to accept it. One cannot improve on it."
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci86Aps7CMo
> >
> > "We can no longer just shut our eyes to the negative energy states."
> > (While it's still all positive probabilities, ..., as for what events.)
> >
> > "... there is a further doubling ...".
> >
> > (Dirac explains where positrons come from, also electron holes.)
> >
> >
> > De Broglie talks about electron waves.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stRrf4DB_3Y
> >
> > I especially enjoyed the interview with de Broglie at the Paris Academy with the bust of Fresnel.
> >
> > They're actually both pretty right. People saying Dirac and de Broglie are at odds are underinformed.
> > Theorists not pulling them back together are just, well, they're stepping off.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgXYvaSfFdE
> >
> > "Present day theoretical physics is not in a satisfactory state." -- Dirac
> >
> > "Most physicists say that we can turn a blind eye toward the infinities, ...,
> > cutting out artificially the infinities, ... I feel very unhappy about it. ...
> > Mathematics does not allow you to discard infinities just when they
> > don't suit you. ... I think I'm pretty well alone among physicists this way,
> > ..., but I'm hoping, ...." -- Dirac
> >
> > "... resignation physics ...". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Touschek#/media/File:Bruno_Touschek.jpg
> >
> >
> > Merry Christmas
> I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.
>
> He laughs then with his "how high I am" and "why worry" and it's like "you're finite, Feynman".
>
> His world of ammoniac salts is of a _false_, bravado. It's like when Dirac says
> "it's hard to find people brave enough to be monumental physicists", Feynman's
> a sort of showman.
>
> I like Feynman, and he's got a lot of bits in his bag, and he's a decent explicator
> when he isn't just blowing smoke, but after something like sum-of-histories
> and the path integral that I associate with him, and are real, and formalisms
> associated with scattering and tunneling in quantum theory, and electrodynamics
> and chromodynamics, which are real, it's like that's a pretty good example of a
> problem-solver and a calculator with a repertoire of approximations on the surface.
> I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDZaM-Bi-kI
>
> It helps to hear Dirac's exposition first, then de Broglie, before Feynman.
>
> Feynman is great, after Einstein he's one of the most famous physicists in the world.
>
> "One man's virtual particle is another man's virtual anti-particle."

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 10:21:33 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:31:14 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/23/23 6:13 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > > > > > > In [the Bell paradox scenario], [...] the accelerometers on the two
> > > > > > > rockets will show different accelerations
> > > > > > This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Equal proper accelerations is stipulated in
> > > > > > the setup. (IOW: the rockets are identical.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
> > > > > > can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
> > > > > > at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
> > > > > > trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
> > > > > > post, and its [@] footnote.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are apparently too invested in your mistakes to re-think this and
> > > > > > resolve your errors. Your problem, not mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > > I wonder, let's say you put "the theory" on a timeline down the decades.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, from 1900, there's electron physics, and, 1905, annus mirabilis, so every five years
> > > > > or so, there's an, ..., improvement, to the theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, not all the improvements, are compatible or sympatico, with the existing ones.
> > > > > For example that "relativity is classical in the limit" or along these lines, it's "conservative",
> > > > > while not compatible, is, "non-conservative", conservative in the sense of not really
> > > > > changing the theory, vis-a-vis conservation in the usual sense meaning invariant theory
> > > > > and symmetry laws and Noether's theorem and conserved quantities.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Copenhagen interpretation or the stochastic model for the statistical ensemble is
> > > > > an example, then about Bohm-de Broglie and real wave mechanics of wave collapse,
> > > > > in events. Similarly resonance theory for the molecular and the differences between
> > > > > atomic and molecular is an example of this kind of thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > For relativity then the big deal seems about that SR is local. This wasn't in effect for
> > > > > lots of interpretations, so now they would be seen as, ..., well, "wrong" is pretty strong,
> > > > > but, no longer in effect, altogether.
> > > > >
> > > > > Something like asymptotic freedom or that time symmetry is the only thing not shown
> > > > > falsified, these are pretty major touchstones on the evolution of the theory, and the
> > > > > fact that the popular accounts are usually quite a ways behind the novel accounts,
> > > > > and also not necessarily at all reflecting, the practical accounts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, re-visiting the definitions and derivations, also result, revisiting the data. The
> > > > > data was gathered and tabulated according to the interpretation, about what it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, re-visiting or re-thinking the theory, here has the benefit of this, and the challenge
> > > > > of it, interpreting experiment as it's evolved in configuration and energy over time,
> > > > > and, according to what were the pronounced and exoteric theories, and especially,
> > > > > the practical or esoteric theories, is for dragging those out and helping people understand
> > > > > how and why the opinions changed, so they don't feel disserved or basically so
> > > > > that they don't distrust or dispute the competence, of, big and primary science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course I'm kind of a personal aggrandizer myself and sort of really only trust
> > > > > theory for its own sake to make the best mathematical interpretation how then
> > > > > it's simplest to assign it clearest physical interpretations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise, when there's "wall-papering", onto the theory, instead of "re-thinking",
> > > > > it, from first theoretical principles establishing the surrounds of the definitions
> > > > > and their derivations, I have feelings like "those people are incompetents and
> > > > > don't know bubkus, and their latest wall-papering after coat-tailing, is not,
> > > > > "quality construction".
> > > > >
> > > > > Or, you know, "a theoretical physicist thinks this".
> > > > >
> > > > > So, whose problem is that?
> > > > One can say the same for mathematics and about the "standard" and "non-standard"
> > > > in mathematics, and the conservative and non-conservative, about continuum mechanics,
> > > > and, especially, what mathematics _owes_ physics, if physics, is to have sufficient correct
> > > > mathematical models, which of course automatically equip physical models, of the
> > > > attachments of physical models to mathematical models.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZXq-UqCdA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=31
> > > >
> > > > Even defining a "continuous domain" today gets quite involved for measure theory,
> > > > then for these very interesting things in the interface between the discrete and continuous,
> > > > which would very well advise the conceit of the particle in quantum mechanics, and
> > > > why superstring theory is just a thing in continuum analysis, about doubling and halving,
> > > > the doubling-measures, doubling-spaces, angle-doubling, and so on, which are
> > > > quite, "real", mathematically, and mathematics is sort of short, owing physics.
> > > >
> > > > So, better theory in physics involves any rehabilitations of mathematics, also.
> > > >
> > > > It's a continuum mechanics, ....
> > > >
> > > > Voice stress analysis is a sort of scientific approach to establish perceived veracity.
> > > Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", "Things and their place in theories"
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine%E2%80%93Putnam_indispensability_argument
> > >
> > > "Putnam's Quibbles on Quine, pointless"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Dirac gives a lecture, starting about why theoretical physicists are people.
> > >
> > > "The wave function Psi is interpreted as referring to a physical state."
> > >
> > > "Some physicists have always objected to that probability interpretation. ..."
> > > "... One has to accept it. One cannot improve on it."
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci86Aps7CMo
> > >
> > > "We can no longer just shut our eyes to the negative energy states."
> > > (While it's still all positive probabilities, ..., as for what events..)
> > >
> > > "... there is a further doubling ...".
> > >
> > > (Dirac explains where positrons come from, also electron holes.)
> > >
> > >
> > > De Broglie talks about electron waves.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stRrf4DB_3Y
> > >
> > > I especially enjoyed the interview with de Broglie at the Paris Academy with the bust of Fresnel.
> > >
> > > They're actually both pretty right. People saying Dirac and de Broglie are at odds are underinformed.
> > > Theorists not pulling them back together are just, well, they're stepping off.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgXYvaSfFdE
> > >
> > > "Present day theoretical physics is not in a satisfactory state." -- Dirac
> > >
> > > "Most physicists say that we can turn a blind eye toward the infinities, ...,
> > > cutting out artificially the infinities, ... I feel very unhappy about it. ...
> > > Mathematics does not allow you to discard infinities just when they
> > > don't suit you. ... I think I'm pretty well alone among physicists this way,
> > > ..., but I'm hoping, ...." -- Dirac
> > >
> > > "... resignation physics ...". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Touschek#/media/File:Bruno_Touschek.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > Merry Christmas
> > I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.
> >
> > He laughs then with his "how high I am" and "why worry" and it's like "you're finite, Feynman".
> >
> > His world of ammoniac salts is of a _false_, bravado. It's like when Dirac says
> > "it's hard to find people brave enough to be monumental physicists", Feynman's
> > a sort of showman.
> >
> > I like Feynman, and he's got a lot of bits in his bag, and he's a decent explicator
> > when he isn't just blowing smoke, but after something like sum-of-histories
> > and the path integral that I associate with him, and are real, and formalisms
> > associated with scattering and tunneling in quantum theory, and electrodynamics
> > and chromodynamics, which are real, it's like that's a pretty good example of a
> > problem-solver and a calculator with a repertoire of approximations on the surface.
> > I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.
> >
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDZaM-Bi-kI
> >
> > It helps to hear Dirac's exposition first, then de Broglie, before Feynman.
> >
> > Feynman is great, after Einstein he's one of the most famous physicists in the world.
> >
> > "One man's virtual particle is another man's virtual anti-particle."
> I don't know if you've read d'Espagnat, he has a book that's a lot about Bell inequalities and the local,
> and non-local, and gets into all these notions of the instrumentalist and operationalist which are each
> sort of non-commital end-runs about the realist.
>
> So, on the one hand, I sort of enjoy reading d'Espagnat, because, he goes to such efforts to switch perspectives
> around and it's sort of a comedy of distraction, but on the other hand I sort of don't because it's seems a
> sort of illusionist's result, and I don't much feel that the theory result good and fair causally.
>
> So, I sort of enjoy reading d'Espagnat, because most arguments he makes have easy pokes,
> but overall it seems he's just another "Dirac's timid coat-tailers", because "Dirac's brave theorists",
> are who will bring improvements overall to the theory, and not just another coat-tailing wall-papering.
>
> I kind of conflate d'Espagnat and Badiou this way.

I (Mike Fontenot) wrote:

>> The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial observers
>> think.  The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on
>> their rockets show the same readings, and that the separation between
>> the rockets doesn't change.

And Tom Roberts responded:

> Except to them their separation does change.

Einstein didn't agree with you.

See:

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/319

In that paper, the separation of the two clocks undergoing equal
accelerations (and with no gravitational fields) is constant.

Also, Einstein showed the equivalence between a scenario with two
separated rockets undergoing equal accelerations versus a scenario with
two stationary clocks in a gravitational field that is constant in both
time and space.

See the first equation given in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

It says, in particular, that for two clocks in a constant and uniform
gravitational field of force per unit mass “g”, separated by the
constant distance “d” in the direction of the field, the clock that is
closer to the source of the field will run slower than the other clock,
by the factor exp(g d).

The equivalence principle then says that for two clocks that are
accelerating with the same acceleration “A”, separated by the constant
distance “d” in the direction of the acceleration, the trailing clock
will run slower than the other clock, by the factor exp(A d). The two
values “g” and “A” are numerically the same.

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-8, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> I (Mike Fontenot) wrote:
>
> >> The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial observers
> >> think. The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on
> >> their rockets show the same readings, and that the separation between
> >> the rockets doesn't change.
> And Tom Roberts responded:
> > Except to them their separation does change.
> Einstein didn't agree with you.
>
> See:
>
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/319
>
> In that paper, the separation of the two clocks undergoing equal
> accelerations (and with no gravitational fields) is constant.
>
> Also, Einstein showed the equivalence between a scenario with two
> separated rockets undergoing equal accelerations versus a scenario with
> two stationary clocks in a gravitational field that is constant in both
> time and space.
>
> See the first equation given in:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
>
> It says, in particular, that for two clocks in a constant and uniform
> gravitational field of force per unit mass “g”, separated by the
> constant distance “d” in the direction of the field, the clock that is
> closer to the source of the field will run slower than the other clock,
> by the factor exp(g d).
>
> The equivalence principle then says that for two clocks that are
> accelerating with the same acceleration “A”, separated by the constant
> distance “d” in the direction of the acceleration, the trailing clock
> will run slower than the other clock, by the factor exp(A d). The two
> values “g” and “A” are numerically the same.

So they're the only two things in the universe, or equi-distant from the
rest in the non-empty universe, they start at mutual rest, and then both
accelerate in a direction initially one away from the other, at the same
time, and then in the Galilean stay constant distance and in the mass-energy
consideration of linear acceleration the space-contraction, that both bring
along their space with them, space-contraction.

Then you want to know the proper distance between them as a function of their
initial distance and time. And you think it's a function of acceleration?

On December 27, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial observers
> think. The people on the rockets care that the accelerometers on their
> rockets show the same readings, and that the separation between the
> rockets doesn't change.

My birthday is Jan. 5, and my brother's b'day is Dec. 15
So every year, on Dec. 16, our calendars show the same age,
and we both advance at the same rate, one day / day.

--
Rich

The reason that result is important is that it allows an accelerating
observer (undergoing a constant acceleration) to set up an arbitrarily
long array of clocks having that constant separation, along any given
straight line passing through him, which he can then use to tell him the
current age of a distant person who is important to him (like his twin
that he left long ago). I.e., it gives him a meaningful
"NOW-at-a-distance".

I give all the details in my Amazon book (the one with the blue cover),
entitled:

An Accelerated Array of Clocks in Special Relativity: A Meaningful
"NOW-at-a Distance”.

You can find it easily on Amazon by searching on my full name: "Michael
Leon Fontenot", or on "An Accelerated Array of Clocks". It's priced at
$7.07, which is about a dollar over the printing cost. (Amazon doesn't
print any books until they are ordered).

On 12/27/23 2:29 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>>> The people on the two rockets don't CARE what any inertial
>>> observers think. The people on the rockets care that the
>>> accelerometers on their rockets show the same readings, and that
>>> the separation between the rockets doesn't change.
> Tom Roberts responded:
>> Except to them their separation does change.
>
> Einstein didn't agree with you.
> https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/319 In that
> paper, the separation of the two clocks undergoing equal
> accelerations (and with no gravitational fields) is constant.

Don't you read your references????

He says "... one restricts oneself to the case in which 7 is so small
that terms of the second or higher power in 7 may be neglected. Since we
are going to restrict ourselves to that case, we do not have to assume
that the acceleration has any influence on the shape of the body."

Note also that this was written 1900-1909, well before the understanding
of GR. He is talking in terms of "clocks running more slowly", which is
inconsistent with GR. Indeed it was written before Born rigid motion was
described.

Note that the two rockets have identical proper accelerations, and
therefore do NOT execute Born rigid motion -- their separation
is not constant in their subsequent inertial rest frames (being constant
would be Born rigid motion).

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation It says,
> in particular, that for two clocks in a constant and uniform
> gravitational field of force per unit mass “g”, separated by the
> constant distance “d” in the direction of the field, the clock that
> is closer to the source of the field will run slower than the other
> clock, by the factor exp(g d).

That, too, is WRONG. Identical clocks ALWAYS RUN AT THE SAME RATE,
regardless of their motion or location in a gravitational field. It is
COMPARISONS of clock that show this, not the clocks themselves.

> The equivalence principle then says [...]

The equivalence principle is a LOCAL principle only. You cannot extend
it to the case of two rockets separated by astronomical distances.

You STILL have not responded to my challenge, and until you do you won't
understand this:

Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
post, and its [@] footnote.)

SR asserts the only different between their trajectories,
measured in the initial inertial frame as a function of
its time coordinate, is their constant separation.
IOW: their trajectories have the same shape in that frame.

Tom Roberts

On 1/1/24 10:42 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
> can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
> at different locations.

Because the length contraction equation (LCE) DEMANDS it!

On 1/1/24 11:58 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> On 1/1/24 10:42 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical
>> rockets can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because
>> they are started at different locations.
>
> Because the length contraction equation (LCE) DEMANDS it!

That's nonsense. SHOW YOUR WORK. You'll find that you are assuming
constant separation in their subsequent instantaneously co-moving
inertial frames, without justification. That assumption is wrong.

Just THINK about it: location in an inertial frame cannot possibly
affect the shape of identical rocket trajectories measured in that
frame. Translation invariance applies.

Apparently you are too psychologically invested in your mistake to even
consider learning about Born rigid motion, when it applies, and when it
doesn't. How sad.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 12:56:06 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 12:08:48 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 10:21:33 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:31:14 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 12/23/23 6:13 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In [the Bell paradox scenario], [...] the accelerometers on the two
> > > > > > > > > rockets will show different accelerations
> > > > > > > > This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Equal proper accelerations is stipulated in
> > > > > > > > the setup. (IOW: the rockets are identical.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
> > > > > > > > can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
> > > > > > > > at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
> > > > > > > > trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
> > > > > > > > post, and its [@] footnote.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are apparently too invested in your mistakes to re-think this and
> > > > > > > > resolve your errors. Your problem, not mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > > > > I wonder, let's say you put "the theory" on a timeline down the decades.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, from 1900, there's electron physics, and, 1905, annus mirabilis, so every five years
> > > > > > > or so, there's an, ..., improvement, to the theory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, not all the improvements, are compatible or sympatico, with the existing ones.
> > > > > > > For example that "relativity is classical in the limit" or along these lines, it's "conservative",
> > > > > > > while not compatible, is, "non-conservative", conservative in the sense of not really
> > > > > > > changing the theory, vis-a-vis conservation in the usual sense meaning invariant theory
> > > > > > > and symmetry laws and Noether's theorem and conserved quantities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Copenhagen interpretation or the stochastic model for the statistical ensemble is
> > > > > > > an example, then about Bohm-de Broglie and real wave mechanics of wave collapse,
> > > > > > > in events. Similarly resonance theory for the molecular and the differences between
> > > > > > > atomic and molecular is an example of this kind of thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For relativity then the big deal seems about that SR is local.. This wasn't in effect for
> > > > > > > lots of interpretations, so now they would be seen as, ..., well, "wrong" is pretty strong,
> > > > > > > but, no longer in effect, altogether.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Something like asymptotic freedom or that time symmetry is the only thing not shown
> > > > > > > falsified, these are pretty major touchstones on the evolution of the theory, and the
> > > > > > > fact that the popular accounts are usually quite a ways behind the novel accounts,
> > > > > > > and also not necessarily at all reflecting, the practical accounts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then, re-visiting the definitions and derivations, also result, revisiting the data. The
> > > > > > > data was gathered and tabulated according to the interpretation, about what it is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, re-visiting or re-thinking the theory, here has the benefit of this, and the challenge
> > > > > > > of it, interpreting experiment as it's evolved in configuration and energy over time,
> > > > > > > and, according to what were the pronounced and exoteric theories, and especially,
> > > > > > > the practical or esoteric theories, is for dragging those out and helping people understand
> > > > > > > how and why the opinions changed, so they don't feel disserved or basically so
> > > > > > > that they don't distrust or dispute the competence, of, big and primary science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course I'm kind of a personal aggrandizer myself and sort of really only trust
> > > > > > > theory for its own sake to make the best mathematical interpretation how then
> > > > > > > it's simplest to assign it clearest physical interpretations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Otherwise, when there's "wall-papering", onto the theory, instead of "re-thinking",
> > > > > > > it, from first theoretical principles establishing the surrounds of the definitions
> > > > > > > and their derivations, I have feelings like "those people are incompetents and
> > > > > > > don't know bubkus, and their latest wall-papering after coat-tailing, is not,
> > > > > > > "quality construction".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or, you know, "a theoretical physicist thinks this".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, whose problem is that?
> > > > > > One can say the same for mathematics and about the "standard" and "non-standard"
> > > > > > in mathematics, and the conservative and non-conservative, about continuum mechanics,
> > > > > > and, especially, what mathematics _owes_ physics, if physics, is to have sufficient correct
> > > > > > mathematical models, which of course automatically equip physical models, of the
> > > > > > attachments of physical models to mathematical models.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZXq-UqCdA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=31
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even defining a "continuous domain" today gets quite involved for measure theory,
> > > > > > then for these very interesting things in the interface between the discrete and continuous,
> > > > > > which would very well advise the conceit of the particle in quantum mechanics, and
> > > > > > why superstring theory is just a thing in continuum analysis, about doubling and halving,
> > > > > > the doubling-measures, doubling-spaces, angle-doubling, and so on, which are
> > > > > > quite, "real", mathematically, and mathematics is sort of short, owing physics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, better theory in physics involves any rehabilitations of mathematics, also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a continuum mechanics, ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Voice stress analysis is a sort of scientific approach to establish perceived veracity.
> > > > > Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", "Things and their place in theories"
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine%E2%80%93Putnam_indispensability_argument
> > > > >
> > > > > "Putnam's Quibbles on Quine, pointless"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Dirac gives a lecture, starting about why theoretical physicists are people.
> > > > >
> > > > > "The wave function Psi is interpreted as referring to a physical state."
> > > > >
> > > > > "Some physicists have always objected to that probability interpretation. ..."
> > > > > "... One has to accept it. One cannot improve on it."
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci86Aps7CMo
> > > > >
> > > > > "We can no longer just shut our eyes to the negative energy states."
> > > > > (While it's still all positive probabilities, ..., as for what events.)
> > > > >
> > > > > "... there is a further doubling ...".
> > > > >
> > > > > (Dirac explains where positrons come from, also electron holes.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > De Broglie talks about electron waves.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stRrf4DB_3Y
> > > > >
> > > > > I especially enjoyed the interview with de Broglie at the Paris Academy with the bust of Fresnel.
> > > > >
> > > > > They're actually both pretty right. People saying Dirac and de Broglie are at odds are underinformed.
> > > > > Theorists not pulling them back together are just, well, they're stepping off.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgXYvaSfFdE
> > > > >
> > > > > "Present day theoretical physics is not in a satisfactory state." -- Dirac
> > > > >
> > > > > "Most physicists say that we can turn a blind eye toward the infinities, ...,
> > > > > cutting out artificially the infinities, ... I feel very unhappy about it. ...
> > > > > Mathematics does not allow you to discard infinities just when they
> > > > > don't suit you. ... I think I'm pretty well alone among physicists this way,
> > > > > ..., but I'm hoping, ...." -- Dirac
> > > > >
> > > > > "... resignation physics ...". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Touschek#/media/File:Bruno_Touschek.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Merry Christmas
> > > > I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist..
> > > >
> > > > He laughs then with his "how high I am" and "why worry" and it's like "you're finite, Feynman".
> > > >
> > > > His world of ammoniac salts is of a _false_, bravado. It's like when Dirac says
> > > > "it's hard to find people brave enough to be monumental physicists", Feynman's
> > > > a sort of showman.
> > > >
> > > > I like Feynman, and he's got a lot of bits in his bag, and he's a decent explicator
> > > > when he isn't just blowing smoke, but after something like sum-of-histories
> > > > and the path integral that I associate with him, and are real, and formalisms
> > > > associated with scattering and tunneling in quantum theory, and electrodynamics
> > > > and chromodynamics, which are real, it's like that's a pretty good example of a
> > > > problem-solver and a calculator with a repertoire of approximations on the surface.
> > > > I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDZaM-Bi-kI
> > > >
> > > > It helps to hear Dirac's exposition first, then de Broglie, before Feynman.
> > > >
> > > > Feynman is great, after Einstein he's one of the most famous physicists in the world.
> > > >
> > > > "One man's virtual particle is another man's virtual anti-particle."
> > > I don't know if you've read d'Espagnat, he has a book that's a lot about Bell inequalities and the local,
> > > and non-local, and gets into all these notions of the instrumentalist and operationalist which are each
> > > sort of non-commital end-runs about the realist.
> > >
> > > So, on the one hand, I sort of enjoy reading d'Espagnat, because, he goes to such efforts to switch perspectives
> > > around and it's sort of a comedy of distraction, but on the other hand I sort of don't because it's seems a
> > > sort of illusionist's result, and I don't much feel that the theory result good and fair causally.
> > >
> > > So, I sort of enjoy reading d'Espagnat, because most arguments he makes have easy pokes,
> > > but overall it seems he's just another "Dirac's timid coat-tailers", because "Dirac's brave theorists",
> > > are who will bring improvements overall to the theory, and not just another coat-tailing wall-papering.
> > >
> > > I kind of conflate d'Espagnat and Badiou this way.
> > Yeah, there's d'Espagnat and the like "I really put a lot into the Aspect-type experiment and
> > I'm here to tell you that Bell's inequalities aren't, and whether operationalist or instrumentalist
> > you're not a realist." Then Badiou's, "sure, I believe in truth, there's at least four kinds any one
> > of which obviates the other, and at any moment none of them are true", perception.
> >
> > They don't have, "a theory", but express volubly you don't, either,
> > whatever it is that you do. So I dispute them.
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
> >
> > "For his work on this topic, Aspect was awarded part of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics."
> >
> > Yeah, it's pretty much that want "physics is a French thing, you can't understand".
> > Then they also nod to Bohm who is better but say "don't listen to Bohm"..
> >
> > It's like this one rap band put it, "it's a thing, that you _got_ to understand."
> >
> > "Refuse to lose."
> >
> > Don't get me wrong: waves are ondes.
> 1905: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments
>
>
> Greene: That's great 20'th century textbook.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFV2feKDK9E
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpsxH7mOopM&t=4670
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08aLgCb56_w
>
> Davies: Yeah, inflationary theory is paint-canned.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSpFz2ZXHGM
>
> t'Hooft: The, "quantum black hole", is really about the atom as real graviton and black-hole/white-hole and its own virtual partner.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z3JYb_g2Qs
>
> Woit: String theory's still a thing, it's just extended continuum mechanics. What mathematics needs is better continuum mechanics anyways, and it's what it's missing. Twistor theory is old Riemann metric wrapped as new.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsI_HYtP6iU
>
> Turok: yeah you're right physics is in a crisis and its second ultraviolet catastrophe, and the first was resolved with discrete mechanics, and this with continuous.
>
> Davies has some of the best writings about the real parts of special relativity. Then though he gets into mysticism that isn't attached. Then t'Hooft is of course totally famous, and it reminds me of Jefimenko and they kind of go together. Turok is pretty great he at least is honest what's wrong with physics. Penrose on the one hand at least makes clear in his latest book "our theory together disagrees 120 orders of magnitude", then though he's gone right down the rabbit hole. Greene is sort of stuck because his dogmatic, if comprehensive, adherence to his received text kind of has him painted himself into a corner. Hossenfelder, rabbit hole. Kaku is pretty strong and he could pick up where he left off string theory, but, rabbit hole. Tyson is a great popularizer, and solid and textbook, but, the catastrophe has left him some sort of grasping so he's not really advised.
>
> Or, it's not their opinion, kind of.
>
> Turok though, Turok seemed pretty honest at least about problems physics has, and without going all rabbit hole, which is from Alice in Wonderland where going down the rabbit hole means leaving reality and traipsing into absurdity, or as from Through the Looking Glass and so on.
>
> So, t'Hooft is still out in front.
>
> Then there's Dirac, "see I told you so". Then there's Bohm and Einstein, "yeah, that'd be great".
>
> Then, it's kind of beckoning, "Cantor II".

On 12/30/23 2:40 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> The reason that result is important is that it allows an
> accelerating observer (undergoing a constant acceleration) to set up
> an arbitrarily long array of clocks having that constant separation,
> along any given straight line passing through him, which he can
> then use to tell him the current age of a distant person who is
> important to him (like his twin that he left long ago). I.e., it
> gives him a meaningful "NOW-at-a-distance".

I keep telling your "that result" is wrong.

But even if it were correct this would not work, because none of the
clocks along the rocket's direction of acceleration are synchronized --
the rocket would observe clocks ahead of the rocket to accumulate proper
time faster than the rocket's clock, and clocks behind the rocket to
accumulate proper time more slowly than the rocket clock. (It does not
matter how the rocket observes the distant clocks, as long as they use a
consistent method.)

Not to mention the impossibility of constructing such an
array of clocks....

The basic problem is that if these clocks all have equal proper
accelerations, then they don't execute Born rigid motion, and their
separations will vary. If they are given different proper accelerations
such that they do execute Born rigid motion, the previous paragraph
still applies.

Tom Roberts