Re: Oh my God!

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

>
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 13:26:16 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

....
The blue arrow in the attachment shows the line of simultaneity for
the CD frame (pontifically called the S frame).  That arrow violates
RoS in the lab frame.  Prok seems to be under the mistaken impression
that I am claiming that the blue arrow should look like a horizontal
arrow in the lab frame.  I am NOT!  I am claiming that as far as the
lab frame is concerned that the arrow in the lab frame is horizontal
because the arrow in the S frame is going upward (violet arrow).
>
I hope this puts to rest the hyper-ventilation expressed as "ripping
spacetime to shreds!"  It does, of course, deserves some cogitation
about why D can't send an infinitely-fast signal to C.

>
Going through your Universal J. of Physics and Application paper,
I am VERY much reminded of David Seppala, who constantly returned
to these forums presenting the same two or three basic scenarios
with a few new added complications that he hoped would show some
inconsistency with special relativity.

Oh, thank you VERY much!

YOUR tactic is to add additional observers to basic, very well-
known demonstrations of causality violation associated with
superluminal signaling and to argue about what these additional
observers are or aren't capable of seeing.

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

First of all, you do not appear to comprehend the modern usage
of the word "observer". Otherwise you would not have written such
absurdities as "Thus a signal cannot be sent round-trip in this
configuration since A isn’t adjacent to C at t = vL/c2."

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

Taylor and Wheeler discussed the modern concept of "observer" in
Spacetime Physics. The classical usage of the word "observer" very
often led to the same sort of reasoning difficulties that you exhibit,
so they championed a revised definition.

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

See Figure 2-6 from their textbook.
https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/02_chapter2.pdf
For valid pedagogical reasons, their description is a bit verbose.
>
In Wikipedia I explained the concept with somewhat fewer words as
follows: (probably at least 95% my original wording.)
======================================================================
| "Imagine that the frame under consideration is equipped with a
| dense lattice of clocks, synchronized within this reference frame,
| that extends indefinitely throughout the three dimensions of
| space. Any specific location within the lattice is not important.
| The latticework of clocks is used to determine the time and
| position of events taking place within the whole frame. The term
| observer refers to the whole ensemble of clocks associated with
| one inertial frame of reference.
>
| "In this idealized case, every point in space has a clock
| associated with it, and thus the clocks register each event
| instantly, with no time delay between an event and its recording.
| A real observer, will see a delay between the emission of a signal
| and its detection due to the speed of light. To synchronize the
| clocks, in the data reduction following an experiment, the time
| when a signal is received will be corrected to reflect its actual
| time were it to have been recorded by an idealized lattice of
| clocks."
======================================================================
>
In the attached figure, I modified Taylor and Wheeler's diagram by
placing a blue laptop computer in the lower righthand corner to which
all of the clocks in the infinite lattice of clocks report the events
that they have detected.

Thank you for man-splainig yhe obvious.

In a two-dimensional Minkowski diagram, I would diagram this concept
with a dense line of black clocks, with one blue dot representing the
laptop compouter.
>
In your Figure 4, your propose that D should not be able to send the
signal faster than u′ = −c^2/v.
>
      *** THIS IS STUPID ***

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

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

And each one requires a different positioning of the observers
in order to complete a loop.  That's why I specify times
as t = vL/c^2.  If they want to communicate around a loop with
D, L is not the same for them.  As I said, you fail to understand
the subtleties of the problem.
You believe that just because they can receive the signal, my
analysis falls apart.  This is not so.  I explained this in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101:
"What about other observers traveling at some velocity v2? If
v2 < v, the other observer can receive the signal and even
participate (if he is in the proper initial position) without
violating causality; and if v2 > v, that observer won’t be able
to close the message loop unless the observers are properly
positioned initially, in which case, causality will be preserved."
I didn't go into a detailed explanation because that would
distract from the main point of the paper.  I left it as an
exercise for competent readers.

It is IMPOSSIBLE that the speed at which D can send a signal to
C should in any way be dictated by relative speed v of any other
frame because there are an infinite number of different v's to
choose from.

And I left v a parameter in my equations.

If you think otherwise, you are nuts.

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

In my re-drawing of your Figure 4, D sends an infinite speed signal
to C as measured in the S' frame. The signal includes a GUID, the
globally unique identifier 87f01be4-0a75-4428-b296-409ca23312c4

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

The RECEIPT of the signal by C is detected up by the infinite array
of clocks, and the time of this event and the GUID are transmitted
to the blue laptop computer which I have drawn off to the side.

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

Several seconds later, the TRANSMISSION of the signal by D is
detected by the same infinite array of clocks, and the time of this
event and the GUID are transmitted the the blue laptop computer.
>
An analysis program on the laptop computer notes that the transmission
of the uniquely labeled event occurred after its receipt.
>
   *** THERE ARE NO WORRIES ABOUT WHO IS ADJACENT TO WHOM ***

Au contraire, Prok.  You should be worried because you STILL haven't
grasped the complete picture.  I hope mansplaining it to you hasn't
gotten you any more upset.
The logic of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 is tighter than you
believe, but not conclusive.  I wish that we could get beyond the
trivial things and discuss those.