Re: Oh my God!

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 22:18:12 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:24:31 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:47:16 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

>
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures.  Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.

>
I have told you several times that I am designating the S' as
stationary, in addition to plainly stating that fact in my drawing.

>
And then you "moved" the lab frame and pretended S' was still
stationary, which is contradicted by the fact that the t' and
x' axes are no longer orthogonal.

======================================================================
Why do you have such difficulty with a ***SIMPLE*** mental switch? The
x' and t' axes are tilted because our S frame is moving. Our x and t
axes are orthogonal from OUR point of view.
Look, if you want the S frame to be stationary and the S' frame
to be moving, your are perfectly free to do this ***TRIVIAL*** switch.
Physically it makes no difference.
I only wanted the S' frame to be stationary because I wanted eventually
for you to be able to envision the S' frame to be surrounded by an
INFINITY of moving observers, all of whom have a different view of
the emission and receipt events, disagreeing on their order.
======================================================================

Our frame, the S frame, is moving.

>
If it's "our" frame, then we are stationary by the first principle.

======================================================================
No. We are NOT obligated always to make ourselves the stationary
observer. In solving relativistic problems, we choose whichever frames
are most natural and convenient for solving the problem. Take a look
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect. I am
74% author of this article. I did not write the section on
"Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect", nor did I write "Doppler
effect on intensity", nor did I create figures 1 or 8. Everything else
though, is my writing and my drawing (with some improvements by the
sharp eyes of Albert Gartinger).
Note how, in Figures 2, 4, 5 and 6, I compare analyses based on
stationary versus moving observers? The preferred analysis is not
always based on stationary observers.
======================================================================

And the skewed t' and x' axes prove it.  Velocity is relative.
>

To simplify the figures, I have not drawn the S axes, which are
orthogonal. The S' axes are skewed because I am mapping events
in S' to our coordinate system, where our S coordinate system
is moving relative to the S' coordinate system at speeds -0.1c,
0c, and +0.1c.

>
Velocity is relative.  The left and right panels show that S'
is moving relative to S.

======================================================================
They are in relative motion. I just arbitrarily designated the
S' as the stationary frame for pedagogical purposes. You are free to
designate S as the stationary frame, if it makes you feel better.
======================================================================

Prok, I have shown that you completely misunderstood my thesis
whereas the reviewer of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 did not
or he would have rejected it.  Rather than acknowledge your
error and try to understand, you launch another baseless attack
because of your confusion about what v means.  It is the speed
that D must send the signal (Event E1) so it arrives when C and
A are adjacent (E2).  Furthermore, A must send a signal to B
when B is adjacent to D.  Your figures are only half of the full
problem, and they do NOT describe my "proposal."  They are your
imaginings.  If you want to discuss my thesis, then use my
figures (4 and 5, particularly).  Yours are straw men.
>
And you haven't acknowledged your confusion about what frame
is the "stationary" one in the right and left figures.  Just
proclaiming a frame as stationary doesn't make it so, particularly
when you draw its time axis skewed.

>
There is only one person here who is confused, and that is YOU.

>
Nope.  In fact there is confusion on both sides.

Nope. You are confused.

In the S' frame, an infinite speed tachyonic signal is emitted
from (x',t') = (D,0) and is received in zero time at (x',t') = (C,0)
>
That is zero time as measured in the S' frame.

>
There is no confusion there.
>

The emission and receipt events are concurrently monitored by
observers in three "S" frames, where the "S" frames are moving
relative to the S' frame at speeds -0.1c, 0c, and +0.1c, and so
forth.

>
This is certainly possible, but you're three panels represent
perspectives from three different frames, and only the center
panel is from that of S'.

======================================================================
They are all from the perspective of S. It so happens that S and S'
are motionless with respect to each other in the middle panel.
======================================================================

In general, observers in the "S" frames do not consider the signals
as traveling from D to C in zero time.

>
And there's no confusion there, either; however, your last claim
here is switching from Method II (the "hand-off scenario) to
Method I (direct communication between frames in relative motion.
>
Let's get some things cleared up here.
>
(1) We assume that D has a tachyon transmitter and C has a basic
tachyon receiver.
>
(2) C and D can communicate with each other at any speed
c < u < \infty.  (Infinite speed tachyons have no energy
and can't be detected by a basic tachyon receiver.)

======================================================================
Infinite speed is chosen for simplicity of diagramming. I could use
10^6 c signals and the diagrams would be indistinguishable from what
I have drawn. Is that OK with you?
======================================================================

(3) Observers in other frames with a basic tachyon receiver may
or may not be able to "eavesdrop" on their signal, if they don't
have an advanced tachyon receiver.
>
(4) Having an advanced tachyon receiver means that they have a
receiver with a moving sensor that allows the signal energy to
be greater than zero (the velocity between transmitter and
receiver is closing).  Effectively, this is Method II.
>
(5) Under these conditions, there are no causality violations
and there is no ripping of spacetime to shreds.
>
All of this is spelled out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

======================================================================
This is ridiculous. AMONG OTHER THINGS, the moving observer is not
attempting to observe the tachyons directly, but is observing the
READOUTS of the tachyon emitters and receivers. At any subluminal v,
there can be no limitation on the observers' ability to monitor their
READOUTS.
======================================================================