Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #627418
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Ehrenfest paradox |
| Date | 2024-01-18 07:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l0rvggFaq97U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <uo45bl$12mia$1@dont-email.me> <l0mtoiF3vrbU1@mid.individual.net> <uo5njc$1d4o0$1@dont-email.me> <l0pbs8Fj91bU1@mid.individual.net> <oJpWZsB3un7mZR0VEJn6XqTU1rM@jntp> |
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.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Ehrenfest paradox Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-01-06 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 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 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