On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 4:43:31 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10/17/2024 7:16 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 8:05:10 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 15:56, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 7:31:32 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le jeu. 17 oct. 2024, 14:14, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 5:20:26 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 1:14 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> Ostensibly, applying SR, Bob concludes Alice's clock is running slower than his, and vice-versa for Alice* *Yes.* *> so you conclude Alice get Bob's response to her question before she sends it.* *No. Watching somebody's Clock that is running slower than your clock does NOT mean you are observing their time running backwards. * *I know that! You claimed from Bob's pov, Alice's clock is running slower (not running backwards), and when he sends his reply his clock reads 2, whereas Alice's clock reads 1, before she sent the question. I remember that clearly. No one claimed her clock was running backwards. So, without instantaneous anything how is the paradox resolved, and how is this related to MW? TY, AG* The paradox is resoved if there is mo ftl... please do a work on yourself and try to understand what others are saying... *Anyone can say anything, including yourself, but that's not a proof of anything. At best it's a claim. AG * ? If there is no ftl, there is no paradox, ftl brings a paradox because the simultaneity plan is different for alice and bob. That's just SR, that's just what JC said and he's not claiming anything afaics. *Another claim. The only thing lacking is a proof. Moreover, you're factually mistaken. There IS an apparent paradox without FTL. The paradox is how can Bob and Alice see the other's clock running slower. AG* That's not a paradox and was only so named because it confounded Newtonian intuition. *I wrote APPARENT PARADOX. Best to read carefully before throwing stones. AG* If you plot the ticking of two moving clocks along their worldlines and then Lorentz transform your diagram you seem that it is inevitable that each sees the other's clock as running slow. *Yes, that's REALLY obvious. Let me say it again. What you write above is OBVIOUS. And in fact one doesn't need worldlines to see that once one knows that in SR a moving clock appears to run at a slower rate compared to the clock rate of a stationary observer. HOWEVER, it surely appears inherently contradictory if two observers moving in opposite directions, pass by each other, and each views the other's clock as running slower. This is the issue I'd like to resolve, but don't know how. So I ask the "experts", some of whom might reside on this MB, and often suffer undeserved mockery when my question goes over their heads (since they can't distinguish what they know, from what they don't know). AG* What irritates me is you are full demands for proof, but never do the work to prove something to yourself. *Like I just wrote, I have no clue how to prove what I want to understand, and now I see you have no clue what the/my problem is. AG* *OTOH, I did argue something important and to some extent original, but it seems to have gone over your head. Contrary to your model of the origin of universe which I showed implies a type of singularity at the origin IF you maintain belief in an infinite spatial universe, emerging instantaneously, which is flat, and also affirms the BB. This set of ideas is inherently contradictory. So I offered a model with NO singularity at the origin if we assume a beginning that is finite in spatial extent and not flat, which is also consistent with the BB. Theories with infinities are generally considered highly problematic and likely erroneous where the infinities surface, and in the case under discussion there's a consensus in the physics community that the BB occurred, but this is contradicted by the generally accepted assumption that it is also flat and therefore spatially infinite. You might not understand what I am now saying. I will explain it again if you're interested. One final point; previously you appeared irate when I asserted that the observable universe is finite in spatial extent. So I did you the service to remind you that the observable universe is in fact finite in spatial extent, having been measured as 46 BLY in every direction (from every location within). AG* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cef7daa5-d8fc-4175-8943-2e8a4827a5aan%40googlegroups.com.
