Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #627434
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-18 09:15 -0800 |
| References | (7 earlier) <l0mtoiF3vrbU1@mid.individual.net> <uo5njc$1d4o0$1@dont-email.me> <l0pbs8Fj91bU1@mid.individual.net> <oJpWZsB3un7mZR0VEJn6XqTU1rM@jntp> <l0rvggFaq97U1@mid.individual.net> |
| Message-ID | <5277be79-cb38-497f-8e5c-9c8a44c79ee2n@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Ehrenfest paradox |
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 10:41:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.01.2024 um 20:02 schrieb Richard Hachel: > > Le 17/01/2024 à 07:54, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >> Am 16.01.2024 um 11:59 schrieb Python: > >>> Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney: > >>>>> On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is > >>>>>>>>> very > >>>>>>>>> fast. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look > >>>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to > >>>>>>>>> travel > >>>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this > >>>>>>>>> difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is > >>>>>>>>> seemingly no > >>>>>>>>> deleay. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at > >>>>>>>>> the remote clock. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method > >>>>>>>> works. It > >>>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the > >>>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a > >>>>>>>> signal to > >>>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of > >>>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the > >>>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that > >>>>>>> delay > >>>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay > >>>>>>> should be > >>>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a > >>>>>> single > >>>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!! > >>>>> > >>>>> In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term > >>>>> means? > >>>>> Where does the 2 come from? > >> > >> That equation has a different form in Einstein's text: > >> > >> 2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c > >> > >> It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim. > >> > >> The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation. > >> > >> You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the > >> delay. > >> > >> But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the > >> delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in > >> the entire text. > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> I know, of course, what that equation means. > >>>> > >>>> A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts > >>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again. > >>>> > >>>> 2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A > >>>> and a position vector B is not a distance. > >>>> > >>>> But distance from A to B was obviously meant. > >>>> > >>>> Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional > >>>> physicist? > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>> > >>>> Besides of this: > >>>> > >>>> Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of > >>>> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin > >>>> again' (or something equivalent). > >>>> > >>>> Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement. > >>> > >>> 1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is > >> > >> > >> Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses! > >> > >> so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB. > >> > >> It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B > >> was meant. > >> > >> Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily > >> replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB. > >> > >> If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar > >> product of two position vectors A and B. > >> > >> Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points, > >> because points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like > >> e.g. you cannot multiply an egg with an apople). > >> > >> So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors. > >> > >> Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation > >> of 2AB. > >> > >> But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B. > >> > >> ... > >> > >> > >> TH > > > > It is clear that the distance 2AB is worth twice AB. > > > > Let's stay reasonable. > > > > Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric. > > > > But where Einstein makes a dramatic error (I know that I am attacking a > > God, and that it is not nice) is when he believes that t(AB)=t(BA) for > > all observers of the frame . He is completely unaware, it seems, of the > > notion of spatial anisochrony like all physicists today. > One point is: > the time for travel from A to B is not t(AB) > You could, of course, reduce the notation of t_B - t_A to t(AB). > But I'm actually against such short hands. > > second point > > Einstein actually assumed t(AB)=t(BA), but didn't mention the requirements. > > Which are: > Euclidean space > 'isochrony' > stationary situation (neither A nor B shall move) > > This is especially interesting, because Einstein actually dealt with > movement in subsequent chapters and rejected absolute (Euclidean) space > and isochrony. > > TH > > > > Certainly, if I place myself at a point placed equidistant from A and B, > > for example on the perpendicular which passes through M in the middle of > > AB, I would have t(AB)=t(BA) like Eisntein says it. > > > > But not if I'm in A, and not if I'm in B. > > > > It is this difficulty that physicists today do not seem to understand, > > due to their abstract religious belief in a “plan of present time”. > > > > Although I have explained to them how the RR has worked for 40 years, > > and why many things are wrong with their geometry, they are absolutely > > incapable of questioning or even listening without seeking to humiliate > > or even threaten death. > > > > It's simply incredible and worthy of the greatest Hollywood films. > > > > R.H. Actually Einstein's last word on relativity includes a "the time". I read Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and it's his last word on relativity. You can find it under my podcasts at https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson , "Reading from Einstein".
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-08 20:07 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-09 07:20 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-09 12:28 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-10 09:53 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-10 14:05 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-14 07:23 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-14 16:26 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Gus Bähr Schultheiß <igsu@ybonrurg.dd> - 2024-01-14 19:49 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-14 18:50 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-15 00:14 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-01-15 01:17 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-15 00:51 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-15 08:12 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-15 13:37 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-16 09:37 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 20:37 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-01-17 18:46 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-15 15:42 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-16 09:44 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-01-16 11:59 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 03:31 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-17 07:58 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Reid Chu Foong <cdiu@ceehueru.cn> - 2024-01-17 11:47 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-17 19:02 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-01-17 12:38 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-18 07:45 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-18 14:32 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 09:15 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-19 11:39 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Barbaro Bertrand Jacqueline <bndd@abrnarat.fr> - 2024-01-19 17:52 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-19 18:56 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-01-19 14:45 -0600
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Raydel Walentowicz Dubanowski <naar@lrcllolo.pl> - 2024-01-20 12:34 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-01-20 22:02 -0600
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Trejo Metrofanis Demarchis <omef@osjrirea.gr> - 2024-01-21 10:16 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-01-19 14:42 -0600
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Leighton Accorso Passerini <oong@aacrncog.it> - 2024-01-19 22:56 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-20 10:39 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-21 00:31 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-21 08:00 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-21 14:05 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-21 13:58 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-22 07:28 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-22 12:28 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-22 19:31 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-22 20:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity contains a HUGE Loophole. Its Implications Can't Be Ignored. PNA <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 02:58 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-23 11:58 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 09:07 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-23 19:11 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-23 23:25 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-23 22:11 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-24 00:55 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-22 14:08 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-23 09:47 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-23 11:21 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-01-23 11:23 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2024-01-23 05:33 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-23 19:26 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-24 08:10 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-18 00:06 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-18 07:52 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-19 11:37 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-21 08:02 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-21 13:51 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-22 07:34 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-22 12:40 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-23 09:53 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-23 11:51 -0500
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-24 08:15 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Archie Rusnak Dunajski <circ@rkuuarka.pl> - 2024-01-19 16:01 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-01-19 12:31 -0800
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Levon Havroshin Babenkov <ahoo@enioheno.ru> - 2024-01-16 13:25 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-01-09 15:07 +0100
csiph-web