Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #666409 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-01 00:46 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-10-13 16:55 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-01 00:46 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 07:06 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 07:44 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 11:07 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 09:45 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 13:02 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 11:31 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 13:37 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Dan Wawrzaszek <kr@wskenezr.pl> - 2025-10-01 13:10 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-01 13:39 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-01 16:32 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-01 09:47 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 09:52 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-04 20:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-05 11:00 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-05 12:38 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-05 12:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 10:22 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 14:01 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-05 23:56 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-06 21:13 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-07 10:05 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-07 10:51 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-07 14:37 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Tommy Bagirov <yggoo@iooma.ru> - 2025-10-07 21:48 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-07 15:22 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Shannon Bekovich-Cherkassky <sciaa@ssiivsoea.ru> - 2025-10-08 10:28 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-08 00:08 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Fidencio Bagdasarov <ia@ddo.ru> - 2025-10-08 10:31 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-07 15:08 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-09 09:32 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-09 11:28 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-11 09:11 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-09 14:08 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-09 16:21 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Derric Bezumov <eebmm@dbdv.ru> - 2025-10-10 15:10 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Darryn Belorusov <rodryo@nldulan.ru> - 2025-10-09 12:46 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-09 16:56 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-09 11:46 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-09 20:18 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Huey Moshetov <uve@veeo.ru> - 2025-10-10 07:12 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-10 10:44 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-10 10:51 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-10 10:48 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-11 09:18 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-11 09:28 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-13 07:59 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-13 21:59 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Williard Romeijnders <jimso@dilidi.nl> - 2025-10-13 20:36 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-13 13:45 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-14 07:53 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-15 09:44 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 10:58 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Dusty Wronski <yst@ok.pl> - 2025-10-15 10:26 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 06:22 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-15 20:05 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 20:49 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 19:15 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity squalk <sq@net.inv> - 2025-10-15 20:44 +0100
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-15 13:19 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 08:14 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 08:16 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 07:02 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-16 00:44 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-16 19:42 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-16 17:51 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-18 11:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-18 11:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-18 12:16 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-18 13:37 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-18 19:52 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-19 21:02 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-20 09:50 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-18 13:39 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-18 13:40 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 13:52 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Zackee Barazbiev <vbez@eaek.ru> - 2025-10-18 13:50 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 21:11 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-14 13:11 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-14 12:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-15 09:54 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 10:59 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-15 12:32 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 06:39 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-16 12:53 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-15 08:26 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-16 06:53 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-16 00:41 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-15 20:05 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-15 20:37 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 19:14 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-16 08:04 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-17 00:19 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-17 07:36 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-15 11:51 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maykel Schneijder <eaa@eleeadmia.nl> - 2025-10-15 18:59 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-11 21:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-12 13:03 +0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-12 12:33 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Dennett Poplawski <swpt@ltoea.pl> - 2025-10-12 10:53 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-12 21:13 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Elier Szczepanski <eee@spi.pl> - 2025-10-12 19:50 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-13 08:31 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-13 00:03 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-13 22:00 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-10-13 13:54 -0700
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-02 09:20 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-04 21:00 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-05 11:16 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-05 13:51 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-10-07 10:31 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-10-08 21:58 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 07:45 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2025-10-13 10:19 -0300
Re: The problem of simultaneity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-10-13 15:43 +0200
Re: The problem of simultaneity Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-10-13 13:47 +0000
Re: The problem of simultaneity Jay Wojewódzki <jeazwak@kj.pl> - 2025-10-13 16:55 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-06 21:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cg49ekh1hnce170b4vk0bkjhslqdn04gv3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666505 |
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 14:01:36 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 10:22:01 -0700, The Starmaker ><starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 12:38:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >><relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >> >>>Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into your >>>>>> LOCAL future! >>>>>> >>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but that >>>>>> can actually be your past. >>>>>> >>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>> >>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>> >>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>> >>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>> >>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >>>> rotation'. >>>> >>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >>>> anti-matter. >>>> >>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >>>> beings living there. >>>> >>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >>>> detonate instantly. >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>>So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>would explode? >>> >>>Why did you then state: >>> "Your local time will always point into the future, >>> but only into your LOCAL future! >>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, >>> too, but that can actually be your past." >>> >>>Could it be that your statement was meaningless nonsense? >> >>It's callled 'time dialation'. >> >>But to understand time dialation you have to understand WHEN it >>occurs. >> >>It doesn't occur at the same place, at the same time ...everywhere. >> >>Just as, there is no such thing as a 'theory of everything', because >>everything is NOT...everything. >> >> >>Is the Earth the same...everywhere???? >> >>where is the pattern? where is the other earth?? >> >> >>Everything is not everything. >> >> >>You want a theory of everything, remove Earth from the equation. > > >and while you're ad it...remove quantumn mechanics from the equation. > >it's not having nothing to do with what's yous call...everything. > > >In otherwords, there is no theory of everything. it's fudge mechanics. > At least show me what a quantumn rock looks like. i'll settle for a quantumn pebble little rock... i like doing magic tricks "Watch this coin disapear!" Where did it go the lady says?" https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8i7t98
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 10:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkjvlfFdp7iU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666482 |
Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> >>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>> >>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>> your LOCAL future! >>>> >>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>> that can actually be your past. >>>> >>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>> >>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>> >>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >> >> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >> >> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >> rotation'. >> >> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >> anti-matter. >> >> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >> beings living there. >> >> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make us >> detonate instantly. >> >> >> TH > > So if my local future were your local past, then the world > would explode? No, you would. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Iu4FQ.40585$1Pe2.8385@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666535 |
Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>
>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into
>>>>> your LOCAL future!
>>>>>
>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but
>>>>> that can actually be your past.
>>>>>
>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past?
>>>>
>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.)
>>>
>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued.
>>>
>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary
>>> rotation'.
>>>
>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from
>>> anti-matter.
>>>
>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti-
>>> beings living there.
>>>
>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make
>>> us detonate instantly.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world
>> would explode?
>
> No, you would.
>
OK.
Since you are not trying to defend your statement:
"Other observers in other locations have a local future,
too, but that can actually be your past."
. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.
BTW, you have still not responded to the following:
Does that mean that you have understood Einstein's
definition of simultaneity?
Or are you unable to read and understand it?
Please read it, and if you find a logical error in
Einst5ein's derivation, please point it out.
-----------------------------------
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from
| B to A."
So in SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.
That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
(This is the definition of "synchronous".)
Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(a _thought experiment_)
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A."
tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.
In a thought experiment measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.
The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.
We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F
and: t'A = tB + d/c - F
so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F
(t'A - tB) = d/c - F
If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.
This means:
TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.
t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.
Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB − tA = t′A − tB.
This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cj1bekl5hbt2r8gqb72jduqvit3p62d2g0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666537 |
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>>>> your LOCAL future! >>>>>> >>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>>>> that can actually be your past. >>>>>> >>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>> >>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>> >>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>> >>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>> >>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >>>> rotation'. >>>> >>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >>>> anti-matter. >>>> >>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >>>> beings living there. >>>> >>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make >>>> us detonate instantly. >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>> would explode? >> >> No, you would. >> >OK. >Since you are not trying to defend your statement: > > "Other observers in other locations have a local future, > too, but that can actually be your past." > >. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. > >BTW, you have still not responded to the following: > >Does that mean that you have understood Einstein's >definition of simultaneity? >Or are you unable to read and understand it? > >Please read it, and if you find a logical error in >Einst5ein's derivation, please point it out. > >----------------------------------- > >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >------------------------------------------- >| we establish >| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel >| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from >| B to A." > >So in SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition. > >This is a definition of simultaneity, se below. > >That two clocks are synchronous means that they >simultaneously show the same. >(This is the definition of "synchronous".) > >Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment': >(a _thought experiment_) > >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >------------------------------------------- >| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, >| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction >| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t?A." > >tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A. >tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B. >t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected > ray hits A. > >In a thought experiment measurements can be made with >infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it. > >The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B. >Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and >a long time. > >We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F >and: t'A = tB + d/c - F > >so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F > (t'A - tB) = d/c - F > >If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F), >which is true only if F = 0, >the clocks simultaneously show the same. > >This means: > > TB = (TA + d/c) > When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously > shows (TA + d/c), which is the same. > > t'A = (tB + d/c) > When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously > shows (tB + d/c), which is the same. > > >Thus: > In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if > tB ? tA = t?A ? tB. > >This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR >and that the speed of light is isotropic. > >Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically >consistent. > >This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's >predictions are in accordance with measurements. >Only real experiments can do that. You just tested positive for Stupid! A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but, A and B are two different events in time. if i'm in the middle of A and B, ...what time is it? B future or A's past, or half past a cows ass..? You just tested positive for Stupid! Tel GG to send you some used panties... let's get this romance going!!!! -- 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 | Tommy Bagirov <yggoo@iooma.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10c41rq$17i6h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666552 |
The Starmaker wrote: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's predictions are in >>accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can do that. > > You just tested positive for Stupid! > > A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but, > A and B are two different events in time. idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ah4bekl1lg11gb15md6tscghrbjhpa1s8t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666554 |
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 21:48:43 -0000 (UTC), Tommy Bagirov <yggoo@iooma.ru> wrote: >The Starmaker wrote: > >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's predictions are in >>>accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can do that. >> >> You just tested positive for Stupid! >> >> A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but, >> A and B are two different events in time. > >idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the >difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass. You just tested positive for Stupid! What are you , Russian??? A is in the past, and B is in the future! 2 events. past and future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shannon Bekovich-Cherkassky <sciaa@ssiivsoea.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-08 10:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10c5ecf$1h7nq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666556 |
The Starmaker wrote: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 21:48:43 -0000 (UTC), Tommy Bagirov <yggoo@iooma.ru> > wrote: > >>The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's predictions are in >>>>accordance with measurements. Only real experiments can do that. >>> >>> You just tested positive for Stupid! >>> >>> A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but, >>> A and B are two different events in time. >> >>idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the >>difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass. > > You just tested positive for Stupid! What are you , Russian??? > > A is in the past, and B is in the future! 2 events. past and future. you can never prove the past nor the future. The configuration given above, proves space don't exists. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-08 00:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wtiCwDYQ4l_zib-Ottg196E1WCE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666554 |
Le 07/10/2025 à 23:48, Tommy Bagirov a écrit : > idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the > difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass. If the notion of simultaneity is relative (I'm not talking about chronotropy; everyone has accepted the idea that it is relative to the observers' speed of movement), I'm just talking about the notion of relativity of simultaneity by positional change (I am here, you are over there). What tells me (and experience proves the opposite if we understand the genesis of relativistic effects) that the notion of simultaneity of events is absolute and reciprocal for two observers placed in different locations, even if they are perfectly inertial to each other? This is what many physicists do not seem to accept, however. It's true that the idea is so counter-current that we haven't made any progress on it since 1905. We still believe that, for example, if a man beeps at me while he's 3.10^8 m away, and I receive his beep a second after I sent mine, then the two beeps were simultaneous. This is, essentially, reasoning like a Newtonian. And we don't understand AT ALL the very essence of this fantastic theory. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fidencio Bagdasarov <ia@ddo.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-08 10:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10c5ehm$1h7nq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666558 |
Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 07/10/2025 à 23:48, Tommy Bagirov a écrit : >> idiot, if synchronous that's the same event, as one cannot discern the >> difference. See entanglement in quantum physics. Kiss my ass. > > If the notion of simultaneity is relative (I'm not talking about > chronotropy; everyone has accepted the idea that it is relative to the > observers' speed of movement), I'm just talking about the notion of > relativity of simultaneity by positional change (I am here, you are over > there). proven above, your space makes no difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i73bekphs0a1u0apr394spno8lpfhqa4sp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666552 |
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 14:37:46 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" ><relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >>Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>>>>> your LOCAL future! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>>>>> that can actually be your past. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>>> >>>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>>> >>>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary >>>>> rotation'. >>>>> >>>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from >>>>> anti-matter. >>>>> >>>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti- >>>>> beings living there. >>>>> >>>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make >>>>> us detonate instantly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>> would explode? >>> >>> No, you would. >>> >>OK. >>Since you are not trying to defend your statement: >> >> "Other observers in other locations have a local future, >> too, but that can actually be your past." >> >>. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. >> >>BTW, you have still not responded to the following: >> >>Does that mean that you have understood Einstein's >>definition of simultaneity? >>Or are you unable to read and understand it? >> >>Please read it, and if you find a logical error in >>Einst5ein's derivation, please point it out. >> >>----------------------------------- >> >>quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>------------------------------------------- >>| we establish >>| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel >>| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from >>| B to A." >> >>So in SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition. >> >>This is a definition of simultaneity, se below. >> >>That two clocks are synchronous means that they >>simultaneously show the same. >>(This is the definition of "synchronous".) >> >>Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment': >>(a _thought experiment_) >> >>quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity >>------------------------------------------- >>| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, >>| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction >>| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t?A." >> >>tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A. >>tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B. >>t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected >> ray hits A. >> >>In a thought experiment measurements can be made with >>infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it. >> >>The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B. >>Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and >>a long time. >> >>We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F >>and: t'A = tB + d/c - F >> >>so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F >> (t'A - tB) = d/c - F >> >>If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F), >>which is true only if F = 0, >>the clocks simultaneously show the same. >> >>This means: >> >> TB = (TA + d/c) >> When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously >> shows (TA + d/c), which is the same. >> >> t'A = (tB + d/c) >> When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously >> shows (tB + d/c), which is the same. >> >> >>Thus: >> In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if >> tB ? tA = t?A ? tB. >> >>This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR >>and that the speed of light is isotropic. >> >>Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically >>consistent. >> >>This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's >>predictions are in accordance with measurements. >>Only real experiments can do that. > > >You just tested positive for Stupid! > > >A and B may have simultaneously synchronous clocks but, >A and B are two different events in time. > >if i'm in the middle of A and B, ...what time is it? B future or A's >past, or half past a cows ass..? > > >You just tested positive for Stupid! > >Tel GG to send you some used panties... > >let's get this romance going!!!! another reason You just tested positive for Stupid!... Einstein's definition of simultaneity has NOTHING to do with space or time... they are Einstein's 'thought clocks'... he's a con artists.. Einstein's definition of simultaneity has NOTHING to do with space or time...it all has to do with...'relativity'. NOTHING TO DO WITH ...CLOCKS! oops, i think my thought clock is slow, i'm late again for class! i thought it was earlier... i need a new thought clock... 2 clocks a cukoo clock 2 cuckoo clocks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 09:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkp6eaF9jsmU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666537 |
Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> >>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>>>> your LOCAL future! >>>>>> >>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>>>> that can actually be your past. >>>>>> >>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>> >>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>> >>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>> >>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>> >>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an >>>> 'imaginary rotation'. >>>> >>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made >>>> from anti-matter. >>>> >>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for >>>> anti- beings living there. >>>> >>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make >>>> us detonate instantly. >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>> would explode? >> >> No, you would. >> > OK. > Since you are not trying to defend your statement: > > "Other observers in other locations have a local future, > too, but that can actually be your past." > > . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. It is an assumption. This assumption says, that time is local only. This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back into itself'. This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has only one side, even if a sheet of paper has two. Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would walk into the opposite direction. Now think about this phenomenon in 3D. ... TH ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 11:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6cL4BKrzcccuaYxpbQ_ZD5M0zss@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666580 |
Le 09/10/2025 à 09:27, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>>>>> your LOCAL future! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>>>>> that can actually be your past. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>>> >>>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>>> >>>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an >>>>> 'imaginary rotation'. >>>>> >>>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made >>>>> from anti-matter. >>>>> >>>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for >>>>> anti- beings living there. >>>>> >>>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make >>>>> us detonate instantly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>> would explode? >>> >>> No, you would. >>> >> OK. >> Since you are not trying to defend your statement: >> >> "Other observers in other locations have a local future, >> too, but that can actually be your past." >> >> . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. > > It is an assumption. > > This assumption says, that time is local only. > > This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back > into itself'. > > This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has only > one side, even if a sheet of paper has two. > > Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one > direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would > walk into the opposite direction. > > Now think about this phenomenon in 3D. This is (bad) Science-Fiction literature, not science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 09:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkuduvF5g7gU15@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666581 |
Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 13:28 schrieb Python: ... >>>>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an >>>>>> 'imaginary rotation'. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made >>>>>> from anti-matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for >>>>>> anti- beings living there. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would >>>>>> make us detonate instantly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TH >>>>> >>>>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>>> would explode? >>>> >>>> No, you would. >>>> >>> OK. >>> Since you are not trying to defend your statement: >>> >>> "Other observers in other locations have a local future, >>> too, but that can actually be your past." >>> >>> . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. >> >> It is an assumption. >> >> This assumption says, that time is local only. >> >> This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back >> into itself'. >> >> This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has >> only one side, even if a sheet of paper has two. >> >> Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into >> one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and >> would walk into the opposite direction. >> >> Now think about this phenomenon in 3D. > > This is (bad) Science-Fiction literature, not science. > > I had tried to explain a difficult topic in easy words for you and now you complain, that this ain't scientific. Sure, it isn't really scientific. But if you prefer more scientific explanations, that should be possible as well. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 14:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <SyNFQ.35951$X_l4.20076@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666580 |
Den 09.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>>>
>> OK.
>> Since you are not trying to defend your statement:
>>
>> "Other observers in other locations have a local future,
>> too, but that can actually be your past."
>>
>> . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.
>
> It is an assumption.
>
> This assumption says, that time is local only.
>
> This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back
> into itself'.
>
> This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has only
> one side, even if a sheet of paper has two.
>
> Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one
> direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would
> walk into the opposite direction.
>
> Now think about this phenomenon in 3D.
Enough mindless nonsense.
Let's revert to the real world.
The subject line is: The problem of simultaneity.
If you read and understand the following, your problem
with simultaneity will be solved.
But considering all the nonsense you have written,
I doubt that you are able to understand the logic.
But maybe you will surprise me?
-----------------------------
We start with this quote:
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| we establish
| by definition that the “time” required by light to travel
| from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from
| B to A."
Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary
relative to each other.
This definition together with the two postulates of SR means:
The speed of light is isotropic c by definition.
This is a definition of simultaneity, see below.
That two clocks are synchronous means that they
simultaneously show the same.
(This is the definition of "synchronous".)
Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':
(That is a _thought experiment_)
quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity
-------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,
| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A."
tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected
ray hits A.
In a thought experiment measurements can be made with
infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.
The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.
Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and
a long time.
We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F
and: t'A = tB + d/c - F
so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F
(t'A - tB) = d/c - F
If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),
which is true only if F = 0,
the clocks simultaneously show the same.
This means:
TB = (TA + d/c)
When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously
shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.
t'A = (tB + d/c)
When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously
shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.
Thus:
In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if
tB − tA = t′A − tB.
This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR
and that the speed of light is isotropic.
Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically
consistent.
This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's
predictions are in accordance with measurements.
Only real experiments can do that.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 16:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186cd898dbf1c7ba$4167225$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666582 |
On 10/9/2025 2:08 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 09.10.2025 09:32, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> >>> OK. >>> Since you are not trying to defend your statement: >>> >>> "Other observers in other locations have a local future, >>> too, but that can actually be your past." >>> >>> . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. >> >> It is an assumption. >> >> This assumption says, that time is local only. >> >> This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back >> into itself'. >> >> This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has >> only one side, even if a sheet of paper has two. >> >> Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into >> one direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and >> would walk into the opposite direction. >> >> Now think about this phenomenon in 3D. > > Enough mindless nonsense. > > Let's revert to the real world. To de real world from the delusion of your idiot guru, your fellow idiots and yourself... > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- And the definition of a shark: a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, skin, and meat > | we establish > | by definition that the “time” required by light to travel > | from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from > | B to A." > > Note that this statement imply that A and B are stationary > relative to each other. > > This definition together with the two postulates of SR means: > The speed of light is isotropic c by definition. > > This is a definition of simultaneity, see below. > > That two clocks are synchronous means that they > simultaneously show the same. > (This is the definition of "synchronous".) > > Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment': > (That is a _thought experiment_) > > > quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity > ------------------------------------------- > | "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, > | let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction > | of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t′A." > > tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A. > tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B. > t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected > ray hits A. > > In a thought experiment measurements can be made with > infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it. > > The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B. > Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and > a long time. > > We then have: tB = tA + d/c + F > and: t'A = tB + d/c - F > > so: (tB - tA) = d/c + F > (t'A - tB) = d/c - F > > If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB) then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F), > which is true only if F = 0, > the clocks simultaneously show the same. > > This means: > > TB = (TA + d/c) > When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously > shows (TA + d/c), which is the same. > > t'A = (tB + d/c) > When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously > shows (tB + d/c), which is the same. > > > Thus: > In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if > tB − tA = t′A − tB. > > This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR > and that the speed of light is isotropic. > > Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically > consistent. Bullshit, mathematics has no clue of clocks (samely as your idiot guru).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Derric Bezumov <eebmm@dbdv.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cb7kb$4p9l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666584 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 10/9/2025 2:08 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Enough mindless nonsense. >> Let's revert to the real world. > > To de real world from the delusion of your idiot guru, your fellow > idiots and yourself... you shit norwegians should deny the noble prize for peace to yourself, as you provable bombed the Nordstream2 energy pipelines to europe from the bottom of the sea. Disgusting the hypocrisy. the europe should be putting you pay all your money for the damages you created, you deplorable pieces of shit. you bombed the pipelines with such of an arrogance and suck my dick impertinence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darryn Belorusov <rodryo@nldulan.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 12:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10c8aqv$2o98e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666580 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back > into itself'. > > This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has only > one side, even if a sheet of paper has two. you see too many movies, you stupid fuck. That's how the fuck america is brainwashing you stupid uneducated fucks. also, that's how they put you in the war, stupidly bombing your own energy pipelines.. you stupid sons of the bitches. I have no words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 16:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186cda7cdf5a0e02$1213654$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666580 |
On 10/9/2025 9:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>>>>> your LOCAL future! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>>>>> that can actually be your past. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>>> >>>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>>> >>>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an >>>>> 'imaginary rotation'. >>>>> >>>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made >>>>> from anti-matter. >>>>> >>>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for >>>>> anti- beings living there. >>>>> >>>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make >>>>> us detonate instantly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>> would explode? >>> >>> No, you would. >>> >> OK. >> Since you are not trying to defend your statement: >> >> "Other observers in other locations have a local future, >> too, but that can actually be your past." >> >> . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. > > It is an assumption. > > This assumption says, that time is local only. > > This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back > into itself'. > > This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has only > one side, even if a sheet of paper has two. Or imagine Jedis - they use the force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <060gekl54bg39ffaaa16hv5p0eklnk3ah4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666580 |
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>>>>> your LOCAL future! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>>>>> that can actually be your past. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>>> >>>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>>> >>>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an >>>>> 'imaginary rotation'. >>>>> >>>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made >>>>> from anti-matter. >>>>> >>>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for >>>>> anti- beings living there. >>>>> >>>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make >>>>> us detonate instantly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>> would explode? >>> >>> No, you would. >>> >> OK. >> Since you are not trying to defend your statement: >> >> "Other observers in other locations have a local future, >> too, but that can actually be your past." >> >> . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. > >It is an assumption. > >This assumption says, that time is local only. It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local only'...it's caled...Relativity. Einstein's time is local time. loco time. cuckoo time. cuckoo means loco, loco means local in the coco. Locoregional describes something confined to a specific, loco place...local time. loco in the coco means...cuckoo It is where Relativity got it's ...foundation, a cuckoo clock. > >This means: the universe has not really an age, because it 'folds back >into itself'. > >This idea is a little tricky, but imagine a Moebius strip. That has only >one side, even if a sheet of paper has two. > >Now place something (like e.g. yourself) upon one side and walk into one >direction, then you would end up upside down below your feet and would >walk into the opposite direction. > >Now think about this phenomenon in 3D. > >... > >TH > >...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 20:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tkugekh4gi0f13ua35v1v6cfd0spp2qnqk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666586 |
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 11:46:57 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >wrote: > >>Am Dienstag000007, 07.10.2025 um 10:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into >>>>>>>> your LOCAL future! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but >>>>>>>> that can actually be your past. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an >>>>>> 'imaginary rotation'. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made >>>>>> from anti-matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for >>>>>> anti- beings living there. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make >>>>>> us detonate instantly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TH >>>>> >>>>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world >>>>> would explode? >>>> >>>> No, you would. >>>> >>> OK. >>> Since you are not trying to defend your statement: >>> >>> "Other observers in other locations have a local future, >>> too, but that can actually be your past." >>> >>> . . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense. >> >>It is an assumption. >> >>This assumption says, that time is local only. > >It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local >only'...it's caled...Relativity. > >Einstein's time is local time. loco time. cuckoo time. cuckoo means >loco, loco means local in the coco. > > Locoregional describes something confined to a specific, > >loco place...local time. > >loco in the coco means...cuckoo > >It is where Relativity got it's ...foundation, a cuckoo clock. I forgot, yous people are terrible in History... An oversized cuckoo clock? Maybe. But don’t underestimate its influence. The tower inspired a young patent clerk named Albert Einstein, and changed the way we think about the universe. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20160901-the-clock-that-changed-the-meaning-of-time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web