Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #584548 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-30 07:16 +0200 |
| Last post | 2022-05-21 10:02 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-30 07:16 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 23:19 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 15:08 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 09:10 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 09:31 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 16:46 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 09:50 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 19:28 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 11:34 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Russell Eaton <deliveredonline@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 03:42 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Russell Eaton <deliveredonline@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 03:53 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-20 10:43 -0400
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 08:10 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 08:11 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 08:31 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-20 13:17 -0400
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 10:27 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-20 14:08 -0400
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 11:21 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-20 16:18 -0400
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 13:40 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 14:16 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 11:23 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-20 23:42 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 21:27 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-01 14:29 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-02 10:23 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-02 14:14 +0300
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-02 13:54 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 05:29 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-02 17:49 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 08:53 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-02 18:30 +0300
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's 'On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-02 23:05 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 11:26 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 09:05 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-20 13:10 -0500
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-20 11:36 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-20 14:19 -0500
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-28 07:07 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-28 17:48 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 05:31 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Hannu Poropudas <haporopuda@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 01:21 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Hannu Poropudas <haporopuda@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 01:19 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 19:11 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Jonas Tanaka <wrbh@ifzgqznn.zq> - 2022-05-01 20:55 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-04-30 22:37 +1000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-30 14:39 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 06:07 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 15:08 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 09:06 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 19:31 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-01 09:36 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 12:16 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 12:19 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:32 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-02 07:54 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:16 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2022-05-02 14:30 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-30 23:57 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 15:15 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 21:45 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-04-30 20:41 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 12:22 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 20:43 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 16:24 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 10:49 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 19:28 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 14:06 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 13:30 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 19:14 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 21:47 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Job Chikamatsu <fkpy@ekyzcfxq.wn> - 2022-05-01 09:56 +0000
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-19 07:40 +0200
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 02:09 -0700
Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the electrodynamics of moving bodies ' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-21 10:02 +0200
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-02 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4opuo$bgc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584674 |
On Mon, 2 May 2022 11:16:16 -0000 (UTC), Odd Bodkin wrote: > The question was not HOW synchronization should be done in SRT but > WHETHER it should be done in SRT. > > Note that the synchronization test (which is what Einstein described) > works, for obvious reasons. If you have doubts about WHY it should work, > we could spell that out at the grade school level for you. You need to create a video and post it on Youtube. Thomas does not comprehend text nor formulas. He "educates" himself via YT. -- Reinhardt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 08:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jdmj5kF6uh9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584674 |
Am 02.05.2022 um 13:16 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >> But hight is not really the same quantity as velocity. >> >> And here we are talking about SRT, which does not know anything about >> hight. SRT only covers streight lateral motion with some velocity v. >> >> So, GPS uses a compensation based on GR, what should be ok. >> >> But that has no influence on any statement in SRT. >> >> In SRT we are discussing synchronized clocks in a 'flat' environment, >> which knows nothing about gravity. > > Actually, you were questioning whether there is any need to synchronize > clocks at different places. This is not exactly true, while close to what I think. Einstein wrote, that ALL considerations about time include considerations about synchronisation of clocks. But that is wrong, because our concept of time is based on our own local time and on the idea of counting events of known frequency. Other times at other places are usually not our concern. But such times from other places can be usfull in some cases, even if they are not for standard situations. >> >> Now the question arises, how such synchronisation should be done in SRT >> and whether or not Einstein's method was correct. > > The question was not HOW synchronization should be done in SRT but WHETHER > it should be done in SRT. > > Note that the synchronization test (which is what Einstein described) > works, for obvious reasons. If you have doubts about WHY it should work, we > could spell that out at the grade school level for you. > I wanted to express, that my understanding of the term 'synchronisation' is different to the understanding of Einstein of the same phrase. Einstein took the actual reading of a remote clock as time of the place, where that clock is located, while I wanted to add the delay caused by the finite speed of light. So our understanding of a principle is slightly different. It is not a question of education, because I can understand Einstein's concept. I only reject it as pure nonsense. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 23:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t4kbc7$1gnv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584559 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > [snip pure bs] > > But a better system would be Poincaré's local time. Cretin! The synchronization scheme presented in A.E. article is actually called the "Einstein-Poicaré synchronization convention" for a good reason : Einstein and Poicaré's ideas are 100% equivalent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <797f8cd8-a577-4c63-aa73-fe1ae2b7bae6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584579 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:57:34 PM UTC-3, Python wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > > [snip pure bs] > > > > But a better system would be Poincaré's local time. > Cretin! The synchronization scheme presented in A.E. article > is actually called the "Einstein-Poicaré synchronization convention" > for a good reason : Einstein and Poicaré's ideas are 100% equivalent. Venous Python writing the name of a cretin plagiarist along with the name of Poincaré. But you can't expect decency from a deceiver, liar, envious relativist like Python. His nick tells it all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 21:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62c4b78a-78e3-4f28-8445-3fd87a53e92an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584579 |
On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 23:57:34 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > > [snip pure bs] > > > > But a better system would be Poincaré's local time. > Cretin! The synchronization scheme presented in A.E. article Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying to pretend he knows something. Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, it has to be formulable in the language of the theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for that, poor stinker? > is actually called the "Einstein-Poicaré synchronization convention" No matter how it is called, it's primitive and useless. But it doesn't prevent some idiots to worship it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 20:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jd5e6rFt1i7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584559 |
Am 30.04.2022 um 17:08 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Hi NG >> >> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept >> about time. >> >> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. > > No, he did not. Actually he did. See here quote from page 2, §2 3rd paragraph >>> "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays >>> a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I >>> say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: >>> "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the >>> train are simultaneous events." " I would interpret his statement, that he regarded simultinaety as important for a definition of time. But time is usually based on the idea of counting events, which occur one after the other, hence are not simultanious. That clocks operate in synch at a certain location is obviously required and not at all a problem. But the synchronisation of remote clocks seem to be superflous for me, if we want to define time. But Einstein wanted to define time based on synchronized clocks, because he tried to make time more universal. But that is an attempt into the wrong direction, because he would end up at Newton's absolute universal time, if he continued his approach. But a better system would be Poincaré's local time. TH ..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f9a1ed2-6aa8-4fd7-a4c4-729840775b1dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:25 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: <snip> > > How do you explain time? > > In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from past through > > present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, > > and even, sequence events. > In math time can be defined many ways, but math is reasonable > enough to avoid trying. And the main function of time is > positioning event, poor idiot Einstein was right assuming it's a coordinate. Actually, the definition that I posted (one of many outputs in Google) is incorrect. Mathematics, as a pure theoretical science, has no use for TIME. Only APPLIED mathematics uses it, but this is outside the realm of the pure mathematical realm. In engineering, time is used as an auxiliary variable and always has t=0 as the MAIN reference. Then, you can analyze events (signals in EE) from -infinity to +infinity. Actually, you are FORCED to do so if you want that different representations of signals can maintain their integrity. Otherwise, you get a wrong result. Because, as I wrote, in applied mathematics, TIME is an auxiliary variable. The most elementary case that come to my mind is the Fourier Transform of a single rectangular pulse of temporal wide T and amplitude A, centered at t=0. To preserve the value of its energy, assuming that A represents the delivery of energy over time, in the frequency domain you have to deal with a SYNC signal that occupy the entire spectrum from - infinite to + infinite. Reciprocally, the Inverse Fourier transform of a pulse-shaped spectrum of wide F, centered around f=0 is a signal IN THE TIME DOMAIN that exists from -infinite time mark up to +infinite time mark (the SYNC signal). Engineering can use this without any existential crisis, because everyone knows that the NEGATIVE values are just a limitation of the Fourier Transform. You will not find any engineer who sustain that negative time has A PHYSICAL MEANING. Just are tools to model things using APPLIED mathematics. But THE CRETIN took the mathematical expressions AS REAL THINGS, because he was a FUCKING IMBECILE! And so are the next five generation of imbeciles who support the fucking SR. For me, the above concepts and outcomes are CRYSTAL CLEAR, because I live in a REAL world. Retarded relativists DON'T. They live in fairyland, telling to each other fairy tails all the time. They also believe in unicorns, like Moroney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d07c193-581c-4858-a2e6-20dbdfb776c2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 19:49:30 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote: > Some definitions of what TIME is, according to first matches in Google search: > > Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time > (You can see clocks from Einstein's epoch here). > > > What is the simple definition of time? > a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration. > b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future. > > > > How do you explain time? > In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from past through > present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, > and even, sequence events. In math time can be defined many ways, but math is reasonable enough to avoid trying. And the main function of time is positioning event, poor idiot Einstein was right assuming it's a coordinate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$438f2$de5b9850$d64d96b0$9e612f0b@gcftghsf.tk> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
Ken Seto wrote: >> A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. >> Such devices are usually not found in nature. > > The only time exist is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute > time (AT) is the same every where in our universe. AT is not sensitive > to gravity potential or motion. Unfortunately, there is no clock time > unit (including a clock second) that repersent the same amount amount of > absolute time in different frames... idiot. The only indicator for the existence of "time" in macro_scale, is *motion* and *entropy* (molecular degradation). It reveals you are an uneducated imbecile, forgetting the disastrous detonation of the two atomic bombs over your country.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626DC530.5277@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Hi NG > > Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept > about time. > > He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. He was thinking then of synchronization of clocks at the Train Stations. The clock einstein used then are known as coo-coo clocks. Cuckoo clocks made in Germany. If you want to recreate einstein's synchronization of clocks you first need to get 2 coo-coo clocks... from Germany the Fatherland. Now, I understand yous people out there might find it a strange concept that einstein would synchronization coo-coo clocks.. but can you name the type of clocks that einstein used to synchronize clocks, if no a coo-coo clocks??? No, of couse not. You haven't done your homework. Yous don't bother even to think for yourselves. > > That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on > observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also > assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future. > > Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative', > hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to > somewhere else. > > Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere > they do the same, but with a time local there. > > This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize > our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we > have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named > 'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick > at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction. > > Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year) > and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus'). > > A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which > that clock was built. > > To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite > difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a > distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that > distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is > synchronized to Earth' clocks. > > Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'? > > I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I > would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run > time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by > relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'. > > Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes > of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel. > Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have > not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the > signal or invisible fields. > > Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are > synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized > to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A. > How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can > assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and > remotely at B. > > Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00 > will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at > 00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in > synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to > compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth. > > Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted. > > To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics > of moving bodies '. > > 1) > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." " > > I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our > concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that > certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we > can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time. > Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is > usually not our concern, if we think about time. > > The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the > small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than > a day are also time. > (The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.) > > 2) > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch for "time." " > > I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks, > because clocks are based on the definition of time. > > Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is > and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock > is also way too restrictive for a definition. > > 3) > > "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space." > > The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of > coordinate system. > The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who > does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require > human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be > real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations, > hence an observer is superfluous. > > Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in > nature. > > To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important > principles of natural science. > > But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain > models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as > requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for > what nature is not supposed to do. > > IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out > certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and > function different to models. > > 4) > > "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience." > > Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a > judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce > into nature. > > 5) > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought. > > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events" > > Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on > human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from > time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not. > > A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such > devices are usually not found in nature. > > TH -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <268dbbbc-fd45-42ea-837f-5272417bd6f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
Some definitions of what TIME is, according to first matches in Google search: Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time (You can see clocks from Einstein's epoch here). What is the simple definition of time? a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration. b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future. How do you explain time? In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of events that occur in succession, from past through present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and even, sequence events. What is definition of time in science? time, a measured or measurable period, a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions. Time is of philosophical interest and is also the subject of mathematical and scientific investigation. Is time an illusion? According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock. Who defined time? In Physics, the Greek thinker Aristotle spelled out a fairly modern-sounding definition of time as “the calculable measure of motion with respect to before and afterness.” This idea of time as a fixed sequence of events would survive with only minor modifications until the work of Einstein in the early 20th century. **************************************** CONCLUSION: Nobody, in the written history of mankind (and I affirmed this) has come to a definition about WHAT IS TIME. Many definitions spin around TIME DURATION, which can be measured by several types of mediating devices. But, as I wrote before, the concept of what TIME is eludes human brainpower in search of a definition. Because, maybe, TIME maybe even doesn't exist. Only TIME DURATION, a lame attempt to distinguish between BEFORE and AFTER. But there is a catch: the 3D scenario at "before" and "after" HAS TO register changes. Otherwise, TIME doesn't flow in the sense it may be perceived by biological entities (we are just one in about 8 millions of living organisms that are believed to exist NOW).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 19:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Concepts about time in Einstein's ‚On the elec trodynamics of moving bodies ' |
| Message-ID | <t4k2l0$8ea$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584596 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > Some definitions of what TIME is, according to first matches in Google search: Which of course is always the best way to get a good grip on what a physical concept is. Lol. > > Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an > apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, > into the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time > (You can see clocks from Einstein's epoch here). > > > What is the simple definition of time? > a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or > condition exists or continues : duration. > b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which > succeed one another from past through present to future. > > > > How do you explain time? > In math, time can be defined as an ongoing and continuous sequence of > events that occur in succession, from past through > present, and to the future. Time is used to quantify, measure or compare > the duration of events or the intervals between them, > and even, sequence events. > > > What is definition of time in science? > time, a measured or measurable period, a continuum that lacks spatial > dimensions. Time is of philosophical interest and is also the subject of > mathematical and scientific investigation. > > > Is time an illusion? > According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: > our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. > Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, > including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock. > > > > Who defined time? > In Physics, the Greek thinker Aristotle spelled out a fairly > modern-sounding definition of time as “the calculable measure of motion > with respect to before and afterness.” This idea of time as a fixed > sequence of events would survive with only minor modifications until the > work of Einstein in the early 20th century. > > **************************************** > > CONCLUSION: Nobody, in the written history of mankind (and I affirmed > this) has come to a definition about WHAT IS TIME. As discovered by perusing the first few hits in Google. LOL. > > Many definitions spin around TIME DURATION, which can be measured by > several types of mediating devices. > But, as I wrote before, the concept of what TIME is eludes human > brainpower in search of a definition. > > Because, maybe, TIME maybe even doesn't exist. Only TIME DURATION, a lame > attempt to distinguish between BEFORE and AFTER. > But there is a catch: the 3D scenario at "before" and "after" HAS TO > register changes. Otherwise, TIME doesn't flow in the sense it may > be perceived by biological entities (we are just one in about 8 millions > of living organisms that are believed to exist NOW). > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1353681-2a3f-4f88-943f-680cfc18b07dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 4:30:26 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote: > On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 1:16:09 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Hi NG > > > > Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept > > about time. > > > > He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. > > > > That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on > > observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also > > assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future. > > > > Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative', > > hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to > > somewhere else. > > > > Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere > > they do the same, but with a time local there. > > > > This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize > > our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we > > have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named > > 'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick > > at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction. > > > > Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year) > > and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus'). > > > > A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which > > that clock was built. > > > > To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite > > difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a > > distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that > > distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is > > synchronized to Earth' clocks. > > > > Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'? > > > > I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I > > would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run > > time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by > > relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'. > > > > Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes > > of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel. > > Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have > > not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the > > signal or invisible fields. > > > > Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are > > synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized > > to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A. > > How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can > > assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and > > remotely at B. > > > > Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00 > > will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at > > 00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in > > synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to > > compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth. > > > > Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted. > > > > To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics > > of moving bodies '. > > > > 1) > > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." " > > > > I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our > > concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that > > certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we > > can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time. > > Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is > > usually not our concern, if we think about time. > > > > The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the > > small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than > > a day are also time. > > (The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.) > > > > 2) > > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch for "time." " > > > > I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks, > > because clocks are based on the definition of time. > > > > Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is > > and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock > > is also way too restrictive for a definition. > > > > 3) > > > "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space." > > > > The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of > > coordinate system. > > The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who > > does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require > > human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be > > real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations, > > hence an observer is superfluous. > > > > Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in > > nature. > > > > To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important > > principles of natural science. > > > > But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain > > models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as > > requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for > > what nature is not supposed to do. > > > > IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out > > certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and > > function different to models. > > > > 4) > > > "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience." > > > > Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a > > judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce > > into nature. > > > > 5) > > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought. > > > > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events" > > > > Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on > > human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from > > time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not. > > > > A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such > > devices are usually not found in nature. > The only time exist is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time (AT) is the same every >where in our universe. AT is not sensitive to gravity potentials or motion. Unfortunately, there is no >clock time unit (including a clock second) that repersents the same amount amount of AT in >different frames.......a clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of AT..... it will represent a different amount of AT in different frames. This effect is called wrongly as time dilation....but AT is not dilatable. The reason why a clock second does not represent a constant amount of AT in different frames because the arrival of the required specific amount of energy to complete a transition.is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. This means that the AT required to complete a transition of the Cs133 atom is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. This explanation shows that the arrival speed of energy (speed of light) is variable......not constant as asserted by Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e23fb43-6412-4e64-8e5d-cfd5c2eb4153n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 1:16:09 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Hi NG > > Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept > about time. > > He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. > > That is wrong, because the concept of time is actually based on > observations of events, that have a certain frequency. Time is also > assumed to flow only in one direction, which is from past towards future. > > Another important feature of time is the fact, that time is 'relative', > hence a local measure and we cannot 'move' our time from here to > somewhere else. > > Therefore, we measure our own local time here on Earth and elsewhere > they do the same, but with a time local there. > > This is only not a problem, as long as we do not attempt to synchronize > our clocks with other clocks in cosmological distances. That's why we > have 'Earth time' (Earth named 'A' here) and on a distant planet (named > 'B') they have a different time with different clocks. Those clocks tick > at a different rate and do not run necessarily into the same direction. > > Also certain frequencies are unknown there (like e.g. our day or year) > and also our 'anchor points' in time (like 'Birth of Jesus'). > > A clock is now designed to show the time local to the place, for which > that clock was built. > > To synchronize two clocks from different planets is therefore quite > difficult. But we could build clocks, that show the local time of a > distant location here, while at the other end of the distance to that > distant planet, they can do the same and build a clock system, which is > synchronized to Earth' clocks. > > Now: how would you like to define 'synchronic'? > > I would think, that there are at least two important effects, which I > would like to eliminate. The first effect would be caused by the run > time of synchronization signals. The second effect would be caused by > relative motion and what is commonly called 'Doppler effect'. > > Other possible effects can eventually be caused by gravity or by changes > of the media density in the realms, through which the signals travel. > Other effects could be caused by other reasons eventually, which we have > not yet taken into considerations, like changes of the speed of the > signal or invisible fields. > > Now we also want synchronization to become symmetric: if clocks at A are > synchronized with clocks at B, these clocks at B are also synchronized > to the clocks mentioned, which are located at A. > How that is done in particular, that is not important here, but we can > assume, that we achieved it and have such clock systems here at A and > remotely at B. > > Therefore, a signal from here starting at a set zero-time value 00:00 > will arrive at 10:00 at B and a signal from there, which started at > 00:00 will arrive here at 10:00. Such clocks cannot be kept in > synchronicity to our usual clocks, because that system needs to > compensate certain effects, which do not occur here on Earth. > > Now we can compare that system, to what Einstein actually wanted. > > To do so, I quote certain parts from Einstein's On the electrodynamics > of moving bodies '. > > 1) > > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events." " > > I would say, that synchronization is not at all the foundation of our > concept of time. The idea of time was based on the assumption, that > certain natural frequencies have a certain unchangeable value, that we > can simply count certain events and get a valid measure for time. > Whether the same effect would occur on distant planets or not, that is > usually not our concern, if we think about time. > > The next serious problem with Einstein's definition of time is, that the > small hand of a clock only shows hours, while time intervals longer than > a day are also time. > (The mentioned ownership of that clock is something we can safely ignore.) > > 2) > > "It might appear possible to overcome all the di?culties attending the de?nition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch for "time." " > > I do not agree, because we cannot base the definition of time on clocks, > because clocks are based on the definition of time. > > Therefore, clocks are not an option, if we try to define, what time is > and how long certain intervals are. The small hand of Einstein's clock > is also way too restrictive for a definition. > > 3) > > "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space." > > The problem here is, of course, the introduction of an observer and of > coordinate system. > The observer seems to be a being with some sort of intelligence, who > does some calculations. But in natural science we don't want to require > human interactions with the environment, to declare something to be > real. Therefore, nature is not assumed to be altered by observations, > hence an observer is superfluous. > > Coordinate systems are human brainchilds and have no real counterpart in > nature. > > To require unnatural entities from nature is violating important > principles of natural science. > > But physicists like to calculate something and therefore need certain > models and related entities. But such entities cannot be treated as > requirements for natural processes, because they are only introduced for > what nature is not supposed to do. > > IOW: nature performs in real what we model in our attempts to figure out > certain events in the future. That's why natural processes are real and > function different to models. > > 4) > > "But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience." > > Here I would see a problem in the word 'disadvantage', which is a > judgment based on our own utility concepts, that we cannot introduce > into nature. > > 5) > > "We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought. > > > If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events" > > Time should be understood as a natural phenomenon, hence is not based on > human intervention or measuring devices. This should be separated from > time-measures, which are based on such devices, while time per se is not. > > A clock is a tiny machine and therefore something, that is created. Such > devices are usually not found in nature. The only time exist is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time (AT) is the same every where in our universe. AT is not sensitive to gravity potential or motion. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that repersent the same amount amount of absolute time in different frames.......a clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of AT but it will represent a different amount of AT in different frames. This effect is called wrongly as time dilation.....But AT is not dilatable. The reason why a clock second does not represent a constant amount of AT is because the arrival of this specific amount of energy is dependent on the arrival speed of this energy (speed of light) and the speed of light is dependent on the . This means that the the arrival speed of energy (light speed) to complete a transition of the Cs133 atom is dependent on the absolute motion of the clock. This explanation shows that the arrival speed of energy (speed of light) is variable......not constant as asserted by Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 19:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <431331ff-0aaf-4e90-a359-b9d0fd00dae9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584548 |
On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:16:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Hi NG > > Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept > about time. > > He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. No, this is incorrect. It's possible, in fact, to state special relativity without ever defining clock synchronisation. Clock sync is NOT where it's at. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 21:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03441b7d-bd41-4c49-ab2b-33804fcd5507n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584609 |
On Sunday, 1 May 2022 at 04:14:22 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > No, this is incorrect. It's possible, in fact, to state special relativity without > ever defining clock synchronisation. And it would be no more detached from the reality than it is now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Job Chikamatsu <fkpy@ekyzcfxq.wn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-01 09:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$67d98$1a68666e$9aee37a$da667e4e@ekyzcfxq.wn> |
| In reply to | #584609 |
JanPB wrote: > On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:16:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Hi NG Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange >> concept about time. He wrote, that time would be based on >> synchronization of clocks. > > No, this is incorrect. It's possible, in fact, to state special > relativity without ever defining clock synchronisation. > Clock sync is NOT where it's at. btw, the nazi gay actor zelenske said nothing yet, about the invasion of the slavic nazi polakia. I believe the polaks and the americanis are debating now, on *what_the_khazar_gay_actor* is going to say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 07:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jem3hnF7ihfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584609 |
Am 01.05.2022 um 04:14 schrieb JanPB: > On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:16:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Hi NG >> >> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept >> about time. >> >> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. > > No, this is incorrect. It's possible, in fact, to state special relativity without > ever defining clock synchronisation. > SRT and Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' are two different things. I was talking about Einstein's paper, while you wrote about SRT. Now it is important to notice, that SRT is a theory, which is composed from the ideas of a great number of people, while Einstein's text is written only by a single physicist. This specific person wrote in that specific text: "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. ..." We could eventually discuss the meaning of this statement, but not about the content of Einstein's text, which contained, what I have quoted. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 02:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <261c7e17-8d35-4575-9ded-31b6fdad137fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585570 |
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.05.2022 um 04:14 schrieb JanPB: > > On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:16:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Hi NG > >> > >> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept > >> about time. > >> > >> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. > > > > No, this is incorrect. It's possible, in fact, to state special relativity without > > ever defining clock synchronisation. > > > SRT and Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' are two > different things. No, they are the same. > I was talking about Einstein's paper, while you wrote about SRT. They are the same. > Now it is important to notice, that SRT is a theory, which is composed > from the ideas of a great number of people, while Einstein's text is > written only by a single physicist. They are the same theories. > This specific person wrote in that specific text: > "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays > a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. ..." > > We could eventually discuss the meaning of this statement, but not about > the content of Einstein's text, which contained, what I have quoted. One theory can be introduced or derived in many different ways. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-21 10:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jerkktF9cabU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #585577 |
Am 19.05.2022 um 11:09 schrieb JanPB: > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:40:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 01.05.2022 um 04:14 schrieb JanPB: >>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:16:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Hi NG >>>> >>>> Einstein based his theory, commonly called 'SRT', on a strange concept >>>> about time. >>>> >>>> He wrote, that time would be based on synchronization of clocks. >>> >>> No, this is incorrect. It's possible, in fact, to state special relativity without >>> ever defining clock synchronisation. >>> >> SRT and Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' are two >> different things. > > No, they are the same. No Relativity is actually a trivial idea and dates back at least to Galileo. Therefore: The idea, that Einstein had invented relativity is not even funny. Special relativity in connection to electrodynamics of moving bodies dates back to Heinrich hertz, who wrote a book about the 'Ausbreitung der elektrischen Kraft' (something like: distribution of the electric forces). and the chapter 14 was about the equations related to the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Einstein apparently used this book, but left no quotes or references. Other roots of SRT were Hendrik Lorentz, Henry Poincare, Hermann Minkowski and others. The historical roots and subsequent changes of SRT prior and after Einstein's text of 1905 belong to SRT, too, hence it is not possible to equate both. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web