One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to synchronize two watches
so that they give the same time at the same present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane of present time?
A slightly blurred line in Poincaré.
Five lines in Einstein who thereby succeeds in the feat of evading the anisochronous question.
Nothing in Jean-Pierre Messager
(the great critic of modern science).
One would think one was dreaming.
Le 01/10/2024 à 00:52, Richard "Hachel" Lengrnd a écrit :
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
...
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 02:34 schrieb Python:
Le 01/10/2024 à 00:52, Richard "Hachel" Lengrnd a écrit :
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 02:34 schrieb Python:
Le 01/10/2024 à 00:52, Richard "Hachel" Lengrnd a écrit :
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane of >> present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
Le 01/10/2024 à 02:34, Python a écrit :
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own hyperplane of
present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
I don't have to answer that.
[snip evading the question]
Le 01/10/2024 à 08:52, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 02:34 schrieb Python:
Le 01/10/2024 à 00:52, Richard "Hachel" Lengrnd a écrit :
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
Le 01/10/2024 à 14:54, Python a écrit :
Le 01/10/2024 à 14:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 01/10/2024 à 08:52, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 02:34 schrieb Python:
Le 01/10/2024 à 00:52, Richard "Hachel" Lengrnd a écrit :
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and >>>>>> the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to >>>>>> synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same >>>>>> present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
LOL.
1. Tu dis que tu ne sais pas.
2. Puis tu dis que tu sais.
3. Puis tu fis que tu sais mieux.
Allez, montre ta force et décris les choses avec ta prose de grand critique scientifique.
Le 01/10/2024 à 14:36, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 01/10/2024 à 08:52, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 02:34 schrieb Python:
Le 01/10/2024 à 00:52, Richard "Hachel" Lengrnd a écrit :
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
Le 01/10/2024 à 02:34, Python a écrit :
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
I don't have to answer that.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 14:54 schrieb Python:
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 21:00, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 20:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 14:54 schrieb Python:
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own >>>>>>>> hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three >>>>>> dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of >>>>> understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity
Your [snip slander] has no definition
of simultaneity
"present" is a special case of simultaneity,
lying stinker, poor stinker.
Le 02/10/2024 à 20:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 14:54 schrieb Python:
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity
Le 02/10/2024 à 20:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity (not "present") sure.
Le 02/10/2024 à 21:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 21:00, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 20:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 14:54 schrieb Python:
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own >>>>>>>>> hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a >>>>>>> hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a
three dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable
of understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the
present' in context of RT and not about the general case of a
hyperplane in mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity
Your [snip slander] has no definition
of simultaneity
We have.
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
TH
Le 02/10/2024 à 20:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000001, 01.10.2024 um 14:54 schrieb Python:
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane of present time?
What do you mean by "hyperlane"?
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three
dimensional space.
In RT-lingo, this is a hyperplane (of the present).
Imagine you would 'flatten' space to a 2-dimensional sheet.
TH
...
Why do you answer him? You can see that he is crazy.
He claims to be a great expert in relativity, but he is incapable of
understanding what a simple "hyperplane" is.
R.H.
I do know what a hyperplane is :-) Neither Thomas nor you do :-)
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
The mathematical definition of hyperplane match with the definition
of hyperplane of simultaneity (not "present") sure.
Your explanation is not correct. It is gibberish.
Le 02/10/2024 à 20:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
'Hyperplane' has a sigtly different meaning than 'hyperplane of
present time'.
But apparently your question was about the 'hyperplane of the present'
in context of RT and not about the general case of a hyperplane in
mathematics.
In case of RT, my explanation was correct!
TH
The two notions are similar.
"Hyperplane of present time" and "hyperplane of simultaneity" are
synonymous (whatever the theory used, Newton, Einstein, Hachel).
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three >>>>>> dimensional space.
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a >>>>>>> hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three >>>>>>> dimensional space.
This is utter gibberish.
This has absolutely no relation with what an hyperplane of events is
in SR.
Le 03/10/2024 à 14:17, Python a écrit :
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a >>>>>>>> hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three >>>>>>>> dimensional space.
This is utter gibberish.
This has absolutely no relation with what an hyperplane of events is
in SR.
Au fait, on attend toujours ta définition, voire un petit pdf de deux ou trois
pages avec pour titre :
"Relativité restreinte et notion de simultanéité".
- Définition
- Hyperplan de simultanéité
- Synchronisation d'horloges
Sauf que tu ne publies jamais rien.
un guignol.
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).
This stupid diagram should no longer be used.
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).
TH
The comoving hyperplane (comoving with the observer) is usually called 'hyperplane of the present.
This is so, because a spacetime diagram uses only two dimensions for
space and one for time, because in pseudo-3d it is not possible to
depict more dimensions.
This 'hyperplane of the present' is therefore depicted as a sheet, but actually means a space.
This space is the space of all events, which could be conneted to the
place called 'here and now' by the observer,
if he would use a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.
This is, of course, not possible, hence only points are accessible,
which are located upon the observers future light cone.
But for definitions we do not need to care about such limitations and
could regard as 'present', what is placed upon the hyperplane of the
present (instead of the positions on the light cone).
TH
Le 03/10/2024 à 14:26, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lenrand a écrit :
Le 03/10/2024 à 14:17, Python a écrit :
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
The set of all points, which could be connected to an events by a >>>>>>>>> hypothetical signal with infinite velocity builds actually a three >>>>>>>>> dimensional space.
This is utter gibberish.
This has absolutely no relation with what an hyperplane of events is
in SR.
Au fait, on attend toujours ta définition, voire un petit pdf de deux ou trois
pages avec pour titre :
"Relativité restreinte et notion de simultanéité".
- Définition
- Hyperplan de simultanéité
- Synchronisation d'horloges
Sauf que tu ne publies jamais rien.
https://noedge.net/e
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/tree/main/Hachel
un guignol.
Nice signature!
Sure, but mathematicians use the term 'hyperplane' for a lot of other
things, too, which have no connections to time.
It is like a subspace with one dimension less.
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
The comoving hyperplane (comoving with the observer) is usually called
'hyperplane of the present.
Absolument.
This is so, because a spacetime diagram uses only two dimensions for
space and one for time, because in pseudo-3d it is not possible to
depict more dimensions.
Absolument.
This 'hyperplane of the present' is therefore depicted as a sheet, but
actually means a space.
Absolument.
This space is the space of all events, which could be conneted to the
place called 'here and now' by the observer,
Absolument.
if he would use a
hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.
This is already the case.
There is no need to imagine an infinite speed of information, because in this case, for the direct observer who "sees" the information arriving, it IS live.
This is, of course, not possible, hence only points are accessible,
which are located upon the observers future light cone.
The notion of hypercone of light no longer has any reason to exist, we should no
longer use this term which adds nothing, even if it is true that for an external
observer B the hyperplane of A is transformed into a hypercone for B in its hyperplane.
But for definitions we do not need to care about such limitations and
could regard as 'present', what is placed upon the hyperplane of the
present (instead of the positions on the light cone).
Absolument.
TH
R.H.
You are not in the position to provide such advises.
You are an old fart shooting at clouds from a shithole.
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).
This stupid diagram should no longer be used.
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
The comoving hyperplane (comoving with the observer) is usually called
'hyperplane of the present.
Absolument.
This is so, because a spacetime diagram uses only two dimensions for
space and one for time, because in pseudo-3d it is not possible to
depict more dimensions.
Absolument.
This 'hyperplane of the present' is therefore depicted as a sheet, but
actually means a space.
Absolument.
This space is the space of all events, which could be conneted to the
place called 'here and now' by the observer,
Absolument.
if he would use a hypothetical signal with infinite velocity.
This is already the case.
There is no need to imagine an infinite speed of information, because in
this case, for the direct observer who "sees" the information arriving,
it IS live.
This is, of course, not possible, hence only points are accessible,
which are located upon the observers future light cone.
The notion of hypercone of light no longer has any reason to exist, we
should no longer use this term which adds nothing, even if it is true
that for an external observer B the hyperplane of A is transformed into
a hypercone for B in its hyperplane.
But for definitions we do not need to care about such limitations and
could regard as 'present', what is placed upon the hyperplane of the
present (instead of the positions on the light cone).
Absolument.
TH
R.H.
Sure:
The observer see remote events 'live'.
But he sees remote events also delayed!
What we see in the night sky is NOT happening now, but earlier than now.
We see events now, which happenend the longer ago the further away.
It is therefore patently irrelevant, what the observer sees, because
these impressions are pictures, we receive from the past.
The 'real thing' is supposed to exist, but remains invisible for a long
time.
This 'real thing' is invisible, but real, while our impressions are
visible, but not real.
We would need to correct this error 'by hand', because we cannot see,
what is happening now.
Such a correction isn't that difficult, since we only need to take the
delay into consideration.
A certain shell around the observer represents a certain set of points,
from where we receive simultaneous signals at the same time.
For other shells further away or closer to us, we need to add or
subtract the delay relative to that shell mentioned above.
If we reduce that shell to zero radius, we would need to measure only delay.
This delay should be used to compensate the time needed for signals to
travel from remote events to the observers.
What is happening now, that will be seen with such a delay later.
Therefore, the (hyperplane of the) present is real, but cannot be seen,
It is constructed by assuming a hypothetical signal, which needs no time
to travel, hence is here once emitted.
This does not exist, but that doesn't matter for a definition.
TH
..
Am Donnerstag000003, 03.10.2024 um 14:41 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 03/10/2024 à 09:09, Thomas Heger a écrit :
My explanation stems from a usualy Minkowski diagramm (the one with a
light cone).
This stupid diagram should no longer be used.
Why? ? ?
I personally think, that Minkowski's version of relativity was actually correct.
TH
Le 05/10/2024 à 09:52, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Sure:
The observer see remote events 'live'.
But he sees remote events also delayed!
What we see in the night sky is NOT happening now, but earlier than now.
We see events now, which happenend the longer ago the further away.
It is therefore patently irrelevant, what the observer sees, because
these impressions are pictures, we receive from the past.
The 'real thing' is supposed to exist, but remains invisible for a
long time.
This 'real thing' is invisible, but real, while our impressions are
visible, but not real.
We would need to correct this error 'by hand', because we cannot see,
what is happening now.
Such a correction isn't that difficult, since we only need to take the
delay into consideration.
A certain shell around the observer represents a certain set of
points, from where we receive simultaneous signals at the same time.
For other shells further away or closer to us, we need to add or
subtract the delay relative to that shell mentioned above.
If we reduce that shell to zero radius, we would need to measure only
delay.
This delay should be used to compensate the time needed for signals to
travel from remote events to the observers.
What is happening now, that will be seen with such a delay later.
Therefore, the (hyperplane of the) present is real, but cannot be seen,
It is constructed by assuming a hypothetical signal, which needs no
time to travel, hence is here once emitted.
This does not exist, but that doesn't matter for a definition.
TH
..
It is a pity that you do not understand, or do not want to understand
the theory of relativity Hachel version, yet much simpler, logical, and without paradox (the Langevin paradox, the Andromeda paradox, and the Erheinfest paradox do not exist in Hachel).
You still do not understand the notion of relativity of simultaneity and
it is a great pity.
We observe the universe live, as paradoxical as it may seem, and the???
belief in a light that takes years to reach us is only due to a misunderstanding of spatiotemporal geometry.
It is the child who is right about the big relativist bigwig.
A child who sees a star (let's say Sirius) does not ask himself the
question of whether what he sees is real or not, or whether Sirius has
not existed for years...
And it is the child who is right, everything is given live (in a vacuum).
The huge blunder of the physicists is intellectual, and not experimental. They will lay a wire coupled to a source A and another, coupled to a
source B.
Then they will launch an electromagnetic signal from A to B.
They do not notice that they are neither in A nor in B, but placed transversely to the flow of information. This is what I have been
explaining for 40 years, and for 40 years, it would seem that
relativistic religiosity is so fierce that no one WANTS to understand,
while it is at the intellectual level of a middle school student.
Transversely, in my hyperplane of present, of simultaneity, I will
notice that t=AB/c and I will decree that the speed of light is v=c.
However, I should rather write Vo=c (because it is only what I observe
from my transverse position, and NEVER longitudinal).
Physicists do not realize that the light of Sirius is instantaneous,
that Sirius IS in my present moment, and that we are FOR ME, in perfect simultaneity of existence.
This horse in this meadow, this moon in this sky, this galaxy in this telescope are observed live.
? ? ?
We have speed of light, haven't we?
So, how do you come to 'instantaneous'?
...
Am Samstag000005, 05.10.2024 um 12:14 schrieb Richard Hachel:
it is a great pity.
You want to say, that we can see galaxies right now and in real time,
which are billions of light years away? ? ?
This would require a speed of light of infinity!
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the
very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize
two watches so that they give the same time at the same present moment?
A little explanation would have been welcome.
Of course, in a Newtonian universe, it is not difficult.
But in a relativistic universe where each observer has his own
hyperplane
of present time?
A slightly blurred line in Poincaré.
Five lines in Einstein who thereby succeeds in the feat of evading the
anisochronous question.
Nothing in Jean-Pierre Messager (the great critic of modern science).
One would think one was dreaming.
R.H.
Pick a different hobby. This is simply not your thing,
you keep forever spinning wheels, same thing over and over which
is not even wrong. Just gobbledygook.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Just gobbledygook.
Jan
Le 07/10/2024 à 23:10, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Just gobbledygook.
Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel
In any case, the concept that I give is certain, because it alone
explains the Langevin paradox in a truly credible way (which avoids the unjustified objections of cranks and anti-relativists).
If you want a correct reasoning, you are obliged to go through the relativistic zoom effect, and this cannot be done either without an instantaneous interaction of light in the longitudinal direction.
I repeat, there exists for each observer, each entity of the universe a hyperplane of simultaneity. Everyone agrees on that.
But for me, it is personal, relative.
All the elements of a given frame have their own.
Physicists do not want to hear this.
They then come to imagine an abstract and false theory, with a common
and absolute present time hyperplane for the entire frame.
This is obviously ridiculous and the opposite is easily demonstrable mathematically since we have a mathematical absurdity on apparent
speeds), but not experimentally for the moment.
Am Sonntag000006, 06.10.2024 um 13:49 schrieb Richard Hachel:
...
In any case, the concept that I give is certain, because it alone
explains the Langevin paradox in a truly credible way (which avoids
the unjustified objections of cranks and anti-relativists).
If you want a correct reasoning, you are obliged to go through the
relativistic zoom effect, and this cannot be done either without an
instantaneous interaction of light in the longitudinal direction.
I repeat, there exists for each observer, each entity of the universe
a hyperplane of simultaneity. Everyone agrees on that.
But for me, it is personal, relative.
All the elements of a given frame have their own.
Physicists do not want to hear this.
They then come to imagine an abstract and false theory, with a common
and absolute present time hyperplane for the entire frame.
This is obviously ridiculous and the opposite is easily demonstrable
mathematically since we have a mathematical absurdity on apparent
speeds), but not experimentally for the moment.
I do not want to insist on my own ideas, but had the concept of local
time, too.
Le 07/10/2024 à 23:46, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 07/10/2024 à 23:10, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Just gobbledygook.
Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel
But yet so true.
Le 07/10/2024 à 23:10, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Just gobbledygook.
Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel, et surtout bien injuste.
On 2024-10-07 21:46:42 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 07/10/2024 à 23:10, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Just gobbledygook.
Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel, et surtout bien injuste.
If you don't like that word then learn to use the Common Language.
Le 09/10/2024 à 11:43, Mikko a écrit :
On 2024-10-07 21:46:42 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 07/10/2024 à 23:10, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :If you don't like that word then learn to use the Common Language.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:52:42 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Just gobbledygook.
Voilà un mot bien hardi envers le docteur Hachel, et surtout bien injuste. >>
Dr. Richard Hachel is probably one of the Usenet posters most attached
to the meaning of language and most saddened by the fog of words.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for
the novice, or even the big shot, to understand what he himself is
saying (the relativistic Joe Biden phenomenon).
I have never introduced words, principles, or concepts without a
precise idea of what I was saying.
And if you look closely, I have only introduced two new words
(anisochrony and chronotropy) and four new concepts (elasticity of
distances which is responsible for a spatial zoom effect definitively explaining the Langevin paradox, more accurate calculation of the
proper times of accelerated objects, radial contraction of the
relativistic disk,
vision of the universe live for any observer).
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for
W dniu 08.10.2024 o 09:41, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am Sonntag000006, 06.10.2024 um 13:49 schrieb Richard Hachel:
...
In any case, the concept that I give is certain, because it alone
explains the Langevin paradox in a truly credible way (which avoids
the unjustified objections of cranks and anti-relativists).
If you want a correct reasoning, you are obliged to go through the
relativistic zoom effect, and this cannot be done either without an
instantaneous interaction of light in the longitudinal direction.
I repeat, there exists for each observer, each entity of the universe
a hyperplane of simultaneity. Everyone agrees on that.
But for me, it is personal, relative.
All the elements of a given frame have their own.
Physicists do not want to hear this.
They then come to imagine an abstract and false theory, with a common
and absolute present time hyperplane for the entire frame.
This is obviously ridiculous and the opposite is easily demonstrable
mathematically since we have a mathematical absurdity on apparent
speeds), but not experimentally for the moment.
I do not want to insist on my own ideas, but had the concept of local
time, too.
I've told you already: feel fre to name
your Great Mystical Youdontknowwhat with
any word you want, just leave "time" alone,
this one already has a meaning and it is
important.
On 2024-10-10 12:33:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 10/10/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and >>> definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for
It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since
1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical
and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical
reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.
Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only about certain aspects of that behaviour.
Le 10/10/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for
It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905. Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.
understand why it works.
Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only about certain aspects of that behaviour.
Mikko
I was thinkering around with various concepts about relativity and
found, that 'local time' would be best.
This wasn't based on any other influence, but was my assumption, which I regarded as appropriate for SRT and GR.
So, I took 'local time' for granted and didn't regard this as a big deal.
Sure, there are other ideas floating around, too.
But in 'my world' time should be a local parameter.
The opposite idea was the concept of Newton, who regarded time as
uniform and universaly valid.
My view was therefore 'relativistic' enough (at least enough for me).
Interstingly, the time-concept of Einstein in his SRT version is not 'relativistic', but actually 'Newtonian'.
TH
On 2024-10-10 12:33:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 10/10/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words
are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and >>> definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for
It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since
1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical
and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical
reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.
Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only about certain aspects of that behaviour.
Am Freitag000011, 11.10.2024 um 11:28 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-10-10 12:33:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 10/10/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words >>>> are only needed when the equations need be connected to the real world. >>>> For that purpose one should use well known words as much as possible and >>>> definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for
It is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words.
I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical and >>> physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.
Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only
about certain aspects of that behaviour.
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
in which any given velocity is indistiushable from being at rest
and where all things move along a streight line.
That not quite how the real world functions.
In that real world there are, for instance, no streight lines.
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.
On 2024-10-12 06:40:33 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Freitag000011, 11.10.2024 um 11:28 schrieb Mikko:
On 2024-10-10 12:33:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 10/10/2024 à 10:01, Mikko a écrit :
The fog of words can be largely avoided by the use of equations. Words >>>>> are only needed when the equations need be connected to the realIt is sometimes the fog of concepts that can generate the fog of words. >>>> I think that this is what has been happening first in relativity
world.
For that purpose one should use well known words as much as
possible and
definitions whenever the usual dictionary meaning is too obscure or
vague.
Especially the fog of concepts in SR, where it is very difficult for >>>>
since 1905.
Henri Poincaré had given the right equations, of great mathematical
and physical perfection (mathematics must be applied to physical
reality).
We have the right equations, we know that it works, but we do not
understand why it works.
Special Relativity does not try to answer why God created the world the
way He did. It only attempts to describe how the world behaves, and only >>> about certain aspects of that behaviour.
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world.
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter >> content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
Which is absurd.
[snip idiotic gobbledigook]
Le 12/10/2024 à 13:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong. >>> SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its
matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the
geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
It does not.
Which is absurd.
Indeed. But only you say that.
[snip idiotic gobbledigook]
Le 12/10/2024 à 15:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 12.10.2024 o 14:22, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 13:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is
wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that
the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and >>>>>> starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its
matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the
geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
It does not.
Which is absurd.
Indeed. But only you say that.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
Nobody rejected Euclid.
W dniu 12.10.2024 o 14:22, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 13:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong. >>>> SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the >>>> world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its
matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the
geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
It does not.
Which is absurd.
Indeed. But only you say that.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
poor stinker.
W dniu 12.10.2024 o 15:17, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 15:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 12.10.2024 o 14:22, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 13:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes >>>>>>> isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is
wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that >>>>>> the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and >>>>>>> starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its >>>>>> matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the >>>>>> geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
It does not.
Which is absurd.
Indeed. But only you say that.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
Nobody rejected Euclid.
Sure, sure. Even [physicists]
are not THAT
stupid, they only pretend they did.
Anyway, [boring idiotic rang]
poor stinker.
Le 12/10/2024 à 15:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 12.10.2024 o 15:17, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 15:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 12.10.2024 o 14:22, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 13:56, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes >>>>>>>> isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is >>>>>>> wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out
that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark >>>>>>>> and starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about
its matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with
the geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-
Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
It does not.
Which is absurd.
Indeed. But only you say that.
And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
Nobody rejected Euclid.
Sure, sure. Even [physicists]
are not THAT
stupid, they only pretend they did.
Neither.
[snip idiotic gobbledigook]
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its
matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the
geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
Which is absurd.
Le 12/10/2024 à 18:53, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 14:22, Python a écrit :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?-DK9cMvJKoOWvRyWbFfJzn69KKo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
[snip idiotic gobbledigook]
C'est clair.
Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
R.H.
It is not nonsense, it the conclusion of what is demonstrated
in the previous page :
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/ divagation_lengrand.pdf
Moreover I've shown you how the same situation occurs with sound
(Doppler effect on the return trip of an ambulance from an hospital
back to you).
You are mentally unable to even consider that you could have been
wrong all these years.
Le 12/10/2024 à 14:22, Python a écrit :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?-DK9cMvJKoOWvRyWbFfJzn69KKo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
[snip idiotic gobbledigook]
C'est clair.
Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
R.H.
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes isn't
the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its matter >> content except that the matter content must be compatible with the geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.
W dniu 13.10.2024 o 10:36, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 18:53, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 14:22, Python a écrit :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?-DK9cMvJKoOWvRyWbFfJzn69KKo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
[snip idiotic gobbledigook]
C'est clair.
Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
R.H.
It is not nonsense, it the conclusion of what is demonstrated
in the previous page :
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/
divagation_lengrand.pdf
Moreover I've shown you how the same situation occurs with sound
(Doppler effect on the return trip of an ambulance from an hospital
back to you).
You are mentally unable to even consider that you could have been
wrong all these years.
Neither you are; it doesn't change the fact
that the mumble of your denying basic math
guru was not even consistent.
Am Samstag000012, 12.10.2024 um 13:56 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is wrong. >>> SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the
world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its
matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the
geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
Which is absurd.
No, it's not absurd.
You need to think in terms of physical reality and ask yourself the
question: why?
Or: Why doesn't the speed of light depend on the velocity of the source?
The reason must be: because speed of light isn't controlled by the
source, but by the space inbetween source and receiver.
This is an obvious requirement, anyhow, because if you would give it up,
than all sorts of strange effect could emerge, which we do not observe.
E.g.
if the space itself would not controll the speed of light, than light
could have different velocities in the wastness of the universe.
Now, already a miniscule different velocity of light rays would add up
to large discrepancies in the time of arival at a remote spote, where an observer would like to observe them.
Since everything moves in the universe, we would encounter 'blur'
effects, if light would not always maintain the same speed, because we
could see rays originating from the same spot at different times.
This would look, as if the e.g. star 'smeared out' and had a strange
halo or similar, because the solar system moves and the entire galaxy rotates.
...
TH
Le 13/10/2024 à 10:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.10.2024 o 10:36, Python pisze:
Le 12/10/2024 à 18:53, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 12/10/2024 à 14:22, Python a écrit :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?-DK9cMvJKoOWvRyWbFfJzn69KKo@jntp/Data.Media:1> >>>>
[snip idiotic gobbledigook]
C'est clair.
Tu ferais mieux de te taire.
It wouldn't occur to me to say such nonsense.
R.H.
It is not nonsense, it the conclusion of what is demonstrated
in the previous page :
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/
divagation_lengrand.pdf
Moreover I've shown you how the same situation occurs with sound
(Doppler effect on the return trip of an ambulance from an hospital
back to you).
You are mentally unable to even consider that you could have been
wrong all these years.
Neither you are; it doesn't change the fact
that the mumble of your denying basic math
guru was not even consistent.
There is no deny of any kind of math in SR,
opposite actually. Moreover SR has been proven consistent.
Le 13/10/2024 à 09:02, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Samstag000012, 12.10.2024 um 13:56 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 12/10/2024 à 11:05, Mikko a écrit :
This is actually not true, because the world which SRT describes
isn't the world we live in.
A failed attempt is still an attempt. Therefore your "because" is
wrong.
SR is an attempt to describe the world. Later it was found out that the >>>> world is different but that does not affect what SR is.
SRT is about a world, where all thinfgs drift around in a dark and
starless void,
No, it is not. SR is about the geometry of the world, not about its
matter
content except that the matter content must be compatible with the
geometry.
SR is first and foremost an attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
The calculation shows that, according to the experiment, w=v+c=c
Which is absurd.
No, it's not absurd.
You need to think in terms of physical reality and ask yourself the
question: why?
Or: Why doesn't the speed of light depend on the velocity of the source?
The reason must be: because speed of light isn't controlled by the
source, but by the space inbetween source and receiver.
This is an obvious requirement, anyhow, because if you would give it
up, than all sorts of strange effect could emerge, which we do not
observe.
E.g.
if the space itself would not controll the speed of light, than light
could have different velocities in the wastness of the universe.
Now, already a miniscule different velocity of light rays would add up
to large discrepancies in the time of arival at a remote spote, where
an observer would like to observe them.
Since everything moves in the universe, we would encounter 'blur'
effects, if light would not always maintain the same speed, because we
could see rays originating from the same spot at different times.
This would look, as if the e.g. star 'smeared out' and had a strange
halo or similar, because the solar system moves and the entire galaxy
rotates.
...
TH
The general law of addition of observable speeds, I gave it here.
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?4VPmaNpqsPlb29iOg3IiI20ZiA0@jntp/Data.Media:1>
It is also the same law as that used by relativistic physicists, but
written a little differently, the results being obviously equivalent.
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?4VPmaNpqsPlb29iOg3IiI20ZiA0@jntp/Data.Media:2>
We notice that the speeds do not add up in a Newtonian way, but in a relativistic way, and that nothing, whatever we do, can exceed c.
The question that arises is: "Why did we arrive at this strange equation?"
On 01-Oct-24 6:52 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the theory of
relativity.
It is derived from the Lorentz Transform,
and is precisely defined.
It is not a problem at all.
Sylvia.
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and the
very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
On 01-Oct-24 6:52 am, Richard Hachel wrote:
One of the most fundamental problems in the history of humanity and
the very basis of the notion of relativity of simultaneity: how to
synchronize two watches so that they give the same time at the same
present moment?
The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the theory of
relativity. It is derived from the Lorentz Transform, and is precisely defined.
It is not a problem at all.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:02:48 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,566 |