Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #627337
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Ehrenfest paradox |
| Date | 2024-01-16 09:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l0mtauF3tfcU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <l0hcnnF2ujoU1@mid.individual.net> <uo1s0i$knh3$2@dont-email.me> <uo1tih$krg5$1@dont-email.me> <l0k3ueFi4h1U1@mid.individual.net> <pJgJ6IJappcCRvehS43hrSz1f6A@jntp> |
Am 15.01.2024 um 14:37 schrieb Richard Hachel: > Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> >> This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single >> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!! >> >> This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts >> to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock >> or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system >> per se. >> >> This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned. >> >> this would be: >> >> measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock. >> >> >> This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be >> able to reject it. >> >> But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was >> produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless >> public. >> >> >> TH > > The problem of synchronization is a problem of temporal reference. > We will say: "This event occurred at five o'clock" but what does that mean? > This means that, for example, we placed in various places in a city, at > noon, all kinds of watches which we artificially set to noon, and that > at a crossroads, an accident occurred. when the small hand of a watch > was on five and the big hand on twelve. > In relativity, things are less simple because the time depends on the > location of the observer in relation to the event. The further away from > the event, the greater the anisochrony will be. No The further away the later the signals will arive. But this would not have any influence on the time of the remote location. It is nonsense to read a 'clock' at a remote location and take the actual reading without compensation of the delay, caused by the finite speed of light. You NEED !!!! to add the delay, otherwise you create nonsense! But for unknown reasons this is not done in SRT (and many other parts of cosmology!). > > What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for > subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single > observer, and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the > watches are synchronized. Well, that's actually ok. I call this principle 'subjectivism'. This means: time is a local phenomenon and the observer in question decides, which time is taken - simply by being somewhere and using the local time. > This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the > geographic position of an event. > > By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at > 43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich > meridian. Everything is only relative to something. > > If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the > theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely > impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will > advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c. > > However, the GPS works. For what? > > Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference. This is perfectly ok. > > What is this basic reference? Well, we have apparently no universal clock and can only use some sort of time standards, which are usually based on our local environment. Bad luck, but that's how it is. To use 'universal standards' for time is simply wrong. > > It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial > dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe, > but equidistant from each of them. > what do you mean with "all the three D points of the universe". The universe does not provide absolute locations neither! So: 'location' means (like time) a place in reference to some other location, which is chosen as reference point. > That's GPS. > > But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a > universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and > that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist. The 'points of a universe' (along a streigth line) are all between point A and point B, because 'streigth line' and 'universe' are defined that way. What we call 'universe' is actually a picture, which we see in the nicht sky. This picture is not real, because it is based on events, which didn't happen at the same time. Instead it is layered in time with distance. So, the 'real universe' is mainly invisible and we cannot tell easily, how it looks like and how it functions. Bad luck, too, but hard to overcome. > On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible > that our world could not exist without it? > > Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist > without universal anisochrony? > ?? TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-04 08:23 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-04 10:05 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-05 07:26 +0100
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2024-01-05 12:33 +0000
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-06 08:47 +0100
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 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 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 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