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 | 18 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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Dennett Poplawski <swpt@ltoea.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-12 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cg1bg$1dkl0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666602 |
Mikko wrote: > On 2025-10-11 19:43:23 +0000, Paul B. Andersen said: > >> Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker: >>> ... >>>> >>>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local >>>> only'...it's caled...Relativity. >> >>> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute >>> space in SRT. > > SRT has been fully understood and succesfully used by others who know > nothing about Eisntei's secrets. it's a low of Nature, idiot, where the macro domain meets the particle quantum. Built into the system. It has NOTHEN to with the gay gypsy Einstine. Fucking gay, changing his name, leaving his kids and family to gay in shit americaaa.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-12 21:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3TGQ.201145$Cyr6.187542@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666598 |
Den 11.10.2025 21:43, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker: >> ... >>> >>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local >>> only'...it's caled...Relativity. > >> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute >> space in SRT. > > Consider the following scenario: > Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z. > A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0. > B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0. > Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B. > The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous. > An object is moving at constant speed from A to B. > When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta. > When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb. > > The time the object used to travel from A to B is Δt = tb - ta. > The object was moving at the speed v = L/Δt = L/(tb - ta). > > Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics(NM) > and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). So is there no difference between NM and SR? Of course it is. In NM the Δt is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent of frames of reference. So what about SR? The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable. (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² (1) or: dτ² = (1 − (1/c²)⋅[(dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)²])dt² (2) or: dτ = √(1 − v²/c²)dt (3) where v² = (dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)² (1), (2) and (3) are the same metric. Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 to the Event E2: t = Δt, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 According to (3): v = 0 τ = ∫(from t=0 to t=Δt)dt = Δt But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ? Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference So: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt')² −dx'² −dy'² −dz'² and: (c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² −dx² −dy² −dz² = (c⋅dt')² −dx'² −dy'² −dz'² note: this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z' Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K with the speed v. The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K': E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0 E2: t' = Δt', x' = v⋅t', y' = 0, z' = 0 Note that v = dx'/dt' and v² = (dx'/dt')² So according to (3): dτ = √(1 − v²/c²)dt' τ = ∫(from t'=0 to t'= Δt') √(1 − v²/c²)dt' = √(1 − v²/c²)Δt' The proper time between two events is invariant so: τ = Δt = √(1 − v²/c²)Δt' The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is Δt in K The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is Δt/√(1 − v²/c²) in K' The temporal intervals between the same two events are different in K and K'. Temporal intervals between events are not absolute, they are frame dependent. (Note that Δt and Δt' are _not_ proper times.) > >> The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure. >> >> this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'. > > Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric > ds² = dx² + dY² + dz² imply that the time Δt is 'absolute'? It doesn't. In NM Δt is 'absolute' in the sense that it is invariant. In SR Δt is frame dependent, not 'an absolute measure'. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Elier Szczepanski <eee@spi.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-12 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ch0qk$1n5ug$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666605 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > or: > dτ = √(1 − v²/c²)dt (3) > where v² = (dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)² > > (1), (2) and (3) are the same metric. why not making it one dimension, in SR one dimension is essential. Wrt an observer the others are superfluous
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 08:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ml3kboF2j2qU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666598 |
Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker: >> ... >>> >>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local >>> only'...it's caled...Relativity. > >> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute >> space in SRT. > > Consider the following scenario: > Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z. > A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0. > B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0. > Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B. > The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous. > An object is moving at constant speed from A to B. > When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta. > When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb. > > The time the object used to travel from A to B is Δt = tb - ta. > The object was moving at the speed v = L/Δt = L/(tb - ta). > > Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics > and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT). The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at point A. Same with point B and 'B-time'. But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run into the same direction at all possible points). That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption. But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate. THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of 'God's clock'). But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the location in question. This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare himself to be at rest and everything else as moving. But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could do the same, but with other time-measures. > >> The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure. >> >> this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'. > > Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric > ds² = dx² + dY² + dz² imply that the time Δt is 'absolute'? Not delta(t), of course, but time t itself. Without some 'absolute time t' you could hardly use delta(t), because that wouldn't make sense, if you have no time t to beginn with. > What does it mean that the time Δt is defined "as absolute measure"? >> >> This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as >> fundamentally distict entities. > > Of course time and space are fundamentally distinct entities. Not just because you say so! I wanted to show, that a spacetime diagram could be treated as complex valued plain. Then time would become imaginary and the real axes real. Now we could take the axis of time and rotate it (in our mind only, of course). Then another axis would become the new axis of time with new orthogonal real axes of a space, which is also filled with new matter. Even if the concept is mathematically very simple, it is totally counter-intuitive. BUT: the real world we live in looks like precisely following such a principle. In case you don't understand the idea, you could read my 'book', which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fp8pek5smh0mvm58qpggnipvge1s7636p0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666617 |
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 08:31:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker: >>> ... >>>> >>>> It is not an assumption. Einstein's time is only based on...'local >>>> only'...it's caled...Relativity. >> >>> No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute >>> space in SRT. Whether Einstein uses an absolute time or a local time, both Times are based on a observer and the position of the observer...which makes it local time both times...and both times are relative. >> >> Consider the following scenario: >> Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z. >> A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0. >> B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0. >> Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B. >> The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous. >> An object is moving at constant speed from A to B. >> When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta. >> When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb. >> >> The time the object used to travel from A to B is ?t = tb - ta. >> The object was moving at the speed v = L/?t = L/(tb - ta). >> >> Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics >> and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT). > > >The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at >point A. > >Same with point B and 'B-time'. > >But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run >into the same direction at all possible points). > >That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same >direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption. > >But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe >would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate. > >THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of >'God's clock'). > >But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the >location in question. > >This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare >himself to be at rest and everything else as moving. > >But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could >do the same, but with other time-measures. > >> >>> The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure. >>> >>> this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'. >> >> Why does the fact that there is no 'time' in the metric >> ds² = dx² + dY² + dz² imply that the time ?t is 'absolute'? > >Not delta(t), of course, but time t itself. > >Without some 'absolute time t' you could hardly use delta(t), because >that wouldn't make sense, if you have no time t to beginn with. > > >> What does it mean that the time ?t is defined "as absolute measure"? > >>> >>> This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as >>> fundamentally distict entities. >> >> Of course time and space are fundamentally distinct entities. > > >Not just because you say so! > >I wanted to show, that a spacetime diagram could be treated as complex >valued plain. > >Then time would become imaginary and the real axes real. > >Now we could take the axis of time and rotate it (in our mind only, of >course). > >Then another axis would become the new axis of time with new orthogonal >real axes of a space, which is also filled with new matter. > >Even if the concept is mathematically very simple, it is totally >counter-intuitive. > >BUT: the real world we live in looks like precisely following such a >principle. > >In case you don't understand the idea, you could read my 'book', which >can be found here: > >https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > >... > > >TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bRcHQ.52847$7E53.21225@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666617 |
Den 13.10.2025 08:31, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>>> Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
>>> space in SRT.
>>
>> Consider the following scenario:
>> Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
>> A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
>> B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
>> Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
>> The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
>> An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
>> When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
>> When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.
>>
>> The time the object used to travel from A to B is Δt = tb - ta.
>> The object was moving at the speed v = L/Δt = L/(tb - ta).
>>
>> Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics(NM)
>> and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SR).
One would expect that everybody would understand the above,
but voalà:
>
> The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at
> point A.
>
> Same with point B and 'B-time'.
>
> But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run
> into the same direction at all possible points).
Which planet do you live on? :-D
On Earth, say in your living room, we have two stationary
clocks a distance L from each other.
These two clocks are equal, which means that
they run at the same rate.
These two clocks simultaneously show the same,
they are synchronous.
Do you seriously claim that this is impossible because
"those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary
run into the same direction at all possible points).
>
> That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same
> direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption.
>
> But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe
> would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate.
>
> THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of
> 'God's clock').
>
> But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the
> location in question.
>
> This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare
> himself to be at rest and everything else as moving.
>
> But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could
> do the same, but with other time-measures.
Why are you stating all this irrelevant nonsense?
Not even you can be so ignorant and stupid that you don't
understand the following scenario:
Remember, this scenario happens in the real world.
Read it again and allow your self think!
Consider the following scenario:
Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z.
A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0.
B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0.
Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B.
The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous.
An object is moving at constant speed from A to B.
When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta.
When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb.
At t = ta, object O at A
Ca = ta Cb = ta
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O
At t = tb, object O at B
Ca = tb Cb = tb
A B
-|---------------------------|---------> x
0 L
O
In case your editor clutters up the figure:
https://paulba.no/temp/Fig1.pdf
The time the object used to travel from A to B is Δt = tb - ta.
The object was moving at the speed v = L/Δt = L/(tb - ta).
Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics
and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).
So is there no difference between NM and SR?
Of course it is.
In NM the Δt is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent
of frames of reference.
So what about SR?
The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this
metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable.
(c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz² (1)
or:
dτ² = (1 − (1/c²)⋅[(dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)²])dt² (2)
or:
dτ = √(1 − v²/c²)dt (3)
where v² = (dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)²
(1), (2) and (3) are the same metric.
Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from
the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
to the Event E2: t = Δt, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
According to (3): v = 0
τ = ∫(from t=0 to t=Δt)dt = Δt
But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ?
Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference
So:
(c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt')² −dx'² −dy'² −dz'²
and:
(c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² −dx² −dy² −dz² = (c⋅dt')² −dx'² −dy'² −dz'²
note:
this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z'
Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K
with the speed v.
The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K':
E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0
E2: t' = Δt', x' = v⋅t', y' = 0, z' = 0
Note that v = dx'/dt' and v² = (dx'/dt')²
So according to (3):
dτ = √(1 − v²/c²)dt'
τ = ∫(from t'=0 to t'= Δt') √(1 − v²/c²)dt' = √(1 − v²/c²)Δt'
The proper time between two events is invariant
so: τ = Δt = √(1 − v²/c²)Δt'
The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is Δt in K
The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is Δt/√(1 − v²/c²) in K'
The temporal intervals between the same two events are
different in K and K'.
Temporal intervals between events are not absolute,
they are frame dependent.
(Note that Δt and Δt' are _not_ proper times.)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fgpqek57o1qmgf7vg19bf5r3jtl84d2fe5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666624 |
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:00:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 13.10.2025 08:31, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 21:43 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> Den 11.10.2025 09:18, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>>> Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute >>>> space in SRT. >>> >>> Consider the following scenario: >>> Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z. >>> A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0. >>> B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0. >>> Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B. >>> The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous. >>> An object is moving at constant speed from A to B. >>> When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta. >>> When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb. >>> >>> The time the object used to travel from A to B is ?t = tb - ta. >>> The object was moving at the speed v = L/?t = L/(tb - ta). >>> >>> Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics(NM) >>> and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SR). > >One would expect that everybody would understand the above, >but voalà: > >> >> The clock at point 'A' should show 'A-time', which is the local time at >> point A. >> >> Same with point B and 'B-time'. >> >> But those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary run >> into the same direction at all possible points). > >Which planet do you live on? :-D > >On Earth, say in your living room, we have two stationary >clocks a distance L from each other. > >These two clocks are equal, which means that >they run at the same rate. > >These two clocks simultaneously show the same, >they are synchronous. you need light to synchronous...no one knows what the speed of light is since both clocks are not in a ...vacumn. > >Do you seriously claim that this is impossible because >"those time measures are local to A and B (and do not necessary > run into the same direction at all possible points). > > >> >> That remote location uses the same time, which runs into the same >> direction and makes clocks tick at the same rate, that is an assumption. >> >> But this assumption also means, that all clocks in all the universe >> would run into the same direction and make clocks tick at the same rate. >> >> THAT is actually 'Newton's absolute time', which is 'external' (kind of >> 'God's clock'). >> >> But if time isn't external, then time had to be restricted to the >> location in question. >> >> This would allow the observer at point 'A' (for instance) to declare >> himself to be at rest and everything else as moving. >> >> But that observer would need to consider, that all other observers could >> do the same, but with other time-measures. >Why are you stating all this irrelevant nonsense? > >Not even you can be so ignorant and stupid that you don't >understand the following scenario: > >Remember, this scenario happens in the real world. >Read it again and allow your self think! > >Consider the following scenario: >Given an Euclidean space where the axes are called x, y and z. >A is a point at x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0. >B is a point at x = L, y = 0 and z = 0. >Clock Ca is placed at A and another, equal clock Cb is at B. >The two clocks simultaneously show the same; they are synchronous. >An object is moving at constant speed from A to B. >When the object is at A clock Ca shows t = ta. >When the object is at B clock Cb shows t = tb. > >At t = ta, object O at A > > Ca = ta Cb = ta > A B > -|---------------------------|---------> x > 0 L > O > > >At t = tb, object O at B > > Ca = tb Cb = tb > A B > -|---------------------------|---------> x > 0 L > O >In case your editor clutters up the figure: >https://paulba.no/temp/Fig1.pdf > > >The time the object used to travel from A to B is ?t = tb - ta. >The object was moving at the speed v = L/?t = L/(tb - ta). > >Note that the above is equally true according Newtonian Mechanics >and according to The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT). > >So is there no difference between NM and SR? > >Of course it is. >In NM the ?t is 'absolute' in the sense that it is independent >of frames of reference. > >So what about SR? > >The metric below defines SR. So what can be deduced from this >metric is what SR predicts. This is indisputable. > > (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ? dx² ? dy² ? dz² (1) >or: > d?² = (1 ? (1/c²)?[(dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)²])dt² (2) >or: > d? = ?(1 ? v²/c²)dt (3) > where v² = (dx/dt)² + (dy/dt)² + (dz/dt)² > >(1), (2) and (3) are the same metric. > >Let's calculate the proper time of a clock that is moving from >the event E1: t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 >to the Event E2: t = ?t, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 > >According to (3): v = 0 > ? = ?(from t=0 to t=?t)dt = ?t > >But what would it be in the frame of reference K' (t',x',z') ? > >Note that the metric (1) is true for any frame of reference >So: > (c?d?)² = (c?dt')² ?dx'² ?dy'² ?dz'² >and: > (c?d?)² = (c?dt)² ?dx² ?dy² ?dz² = (c?dt')² ?dx'² ?dy'² ?dz'² >note: > this does _not_ mean that t = t', x = x', y = y' and z = z' > >Let the origin of K' move along the positive x-axis of K >with the speed v. >The events E1 and E2 will then have the coordinates in K': >E1: t' = 0, x' = 0, y' = 0, z' = 0 >E2: t' = ?t', x' = v?t', y' = 0, z' = 0 > >Note that v = dx'/dt' and v² = (dx'/dt')² >So according to (3): >d? = ?(1 ? v²/c²)dt' >? = ?(from t'=0 to t'= ?t') ?(1 ? v²/c²)dt' = ?(1 ? v²/c²)?t' > >The proper time between two events is invariant >so: ? = ?t = ?(1 ? v²/c²)?t' > >The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is ?t in K >The temporal interval between E1 and E2 is ?t/?(1 ? v²/c²) in K' >The temporal intervals between the same two events are >different in K and K'. > >Temporal intervals between events are not absolute, >they are frame dependent. >(Note that ?t and ?t' are _not_ proper times.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-02 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mk6n54F68rgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666410 |
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.10.2025 um 07:06 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > On 10/1/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure >> of space-time, > > Space time is an abstract, it doesn't have any real structure. > Well, yes, in a way. But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within spacetime. This means: you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and observe the world from there. This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime appear as stable and some don't. Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving aspects are, what we call 'radiation'. The nasty part: this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else. So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a different perspective (or vice versa). In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could fly to a distant position far enough away. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-04 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c7eEQ.42343$T_5b.13852@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666428 |
Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger: > > But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within spacetime. > > This means: > > you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and observe > the world from there. > > This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime > appear as stable and some don't. > > Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving > aspects are, what we call 'radiation'. > > The nasty part: > > this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else. > > So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a > different perspective (or vice versa). Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises 'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter? > > In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could > fly to a distant position far enough away. How far away is this other universe? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 11:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mker1lFh7l0U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666463 |
Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>
>> But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within
>> spacetime.
>>
>> This means:
>>
>> you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and
>> observe the world from there.
>>
>> This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
>> appear as stable and some don't.
>>
>> Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
>> aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.
>>
>> The nasty part:
>>
>> this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.
>>
>> So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
>> different perspective (or vice versa).
>
> Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
> 'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
> recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?
The best example is the photoelectric effect.
In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,
while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.
This movement is defined as an angle in the 'spacetime' picture.
Once the electron is free from the atom, the relevant angle gets 45°,
which stands for c.
If the photon is stopped by a metal plate, light ('radiation') becomes
charge again.
>> In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could
>> fly to a distant position far enough away.
>
> How far away is this other universe?
>
The term 'far' isn't appropriate, because angles in spacetime are
assumed to be complex rotations.
Matter was in my model 'timelike stable patterns', hence with other
timelines also other matter should show up.
(In case of 'backwards time' I would expect 'anti-matter'.)
See here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-05 13:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <YWsEQ.43059$bd96.22852@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666477 |
Den 05.10.2025 11:16, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>
>>> But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within
>>> spacetime.
>>>
>>> This means:
>>>
>>> you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and
>>> observe the world from there.
>>>
>>> This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
>>> appear as stable and some don't.
>>>
>>> Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
>>> aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.
>>>
>>> The nasty part:
>>>
>>> this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.
>>>
>>> So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
>>> different perspective (or vice versa).
>>
>> Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
>> 'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
>> recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?
>
> The best example is the photoelectric effect.
So one observer will recognises the ejected electrons as matter
and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, will recognise
the ejected as radiation and not as matter?
This is of course mindless babble.
However, 'matter' is sometimes called radiation, but
not EM-radiation.
Example: radioactive beta radiation is high speed electrons.
But the position of the observer holding the Geiger counter
is irrelevant, beta radiation is radiation of matter whether
you are on Earth or on the Moon.
>
> In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,
> while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.
When a photon hits a material, an electron may be ejected if
the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy.
But a photon and an electron are not the same thing, and
a photon doesn't become electrons when they are stopped.
From whence do you get these ridiculous ideas? :-D
>
> This movement is defined as an angle in the 'spacetime' picture.
>
> Once the electron is free from the atom, the relevant angle gets 45°,
> which stands for c.
>
> If the photon is stopped by a metal plate, light ('radiation') becomes
> charge again.
Could it be that your statements above are meaningless nonsense?
>>> In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we could
>>> fly to a distant position far enough away.
>>
>> How far away is this other universe?
>>
> The term 'far' isn't appropriate, because angles in spacetime are
> assumed to be complex rotations.
Could it be that your statement above is meaningless nonsense?
>
> Matter was in my model 'timelike stable patterns', hence with other
> timelines also other matter should show up.
>
> (In case of 'backwards time' I would expect 'anti-matter'.)
>
> See here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/
> d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
This is for sure meaningless nonsense.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-07 10:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkk15mFdp7iU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666485 |
Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 13:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 05.10.2025 11:16, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>
>>>> But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within
>>>> spacetime.
>>>>
>>>> This means:
>>>>
>>>> you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and
>>>> observe the world from there.
>>>>
>>>> This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime
>>>> appear as stable and some don't.
>>>>
>>>> Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving
>>>> aspects are, what we call 'radiation'.
>>>>
>>>> The nasty part:
>>>>
>>>> this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else.
>>>>
>>>> So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a
>>>> different perspective (or vice versa).
>>>
>>> Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises
>>> 'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else,
>>> recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter?
>
>>
>> The best example is the photoelectric effect.
>
> So one observer will recognises the ejected electrons as matter
> and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, will recognise
> the ejected as radiation and not as matter?
>
> This is of course mindless babble.
I had the idea, that what we call 'matter' are actually 'timelike stable
patterns'.
So: since electrons are material objects, they need to be timelike stable.
But how do electrons look like if they are not stable?
Well, they would match the description of a photon.
As empirical observation, which supports this claim I would use the
'photoelectric effect'. This effect means, that if you shine light upon
a metal plate, it will become charged.
That's why I think, that photons become electrons, if photons are
stopped by a metal sheet.
This 'become stopped' is a geometric relation in spacetime, because time
in a spacetime diagram is an axis.
If a certain structure moves as radiation, it has an (complex) angle of
45° towards the timeline.
If it gets stopped, the angle is zero.
Now both are king of 'helical screws', but the electron is 'the helix
squeezed flat' and circles horizontally (if the axis of time is placed
vertical).
>
> However, 'matter' is sometimes called radiation, but
> not EM-radiation.
>
> Example: radioactive beta radiation is high speed electrons.
> But the position of the observer holding the Geiger counter
> is irrelevant, beta radiation is radiation of matter whether
> you are on Earth or on the Moon.
???
>>
>> In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing,
>> while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped.
>
> When a photon hits a material, an electron may be ejected if
> the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy.
That's what YOU think, not me.
> But a photon and an electron are not the same thing, and
> a photon doesn't become electrons when they are stopped.
Well, possibly I'm wrong, but the photoelectric effect says something else.
> From whence do you get these ridiculous ideas? :-D
Actually I wanted to connect QM and GR by a relatively simple method.
I took spacetime of GR as real phyical entity and wanted to build the
items of QM from spacetime.
So matter had to be 'timelike stable' and 'relative'.
This means, that matter is only matter for some class of observers,
which share what I call a certain 'time domaine'.
Others time domaines are possible and a change would alter the direction
of the axis of time.
(This could go as far as towards the opposite direction.)
This axis of time defines a certain context, where matter needs to be
stable to be actually matter.
Then matter from other time domains is invisible or would be perceived
as radiation.
>
>>
>> This movement is defined as an angle in the 'spacetime' picture.
>>
>> Once the electron is free from the atom, the relevant angle gets 45°,
>> which stands for c.
>>
>> If the photon is stopped by a metal plate, light ('radiation') becomes
>> charge again.
>
> Could it be that your statements above are meaningless nonsense?
>
>>>> In effect we could enter an entirely different 'universe' if we
>>>> could fly to a distant position far enough away.
>>>
>>> How far away is this other universe?
>>>
>
>> The term 'far' isn't appropriate, because angles in spacetime are
>> assumed to be complex rotations.
>
> Could it be that your statement above is meaningless nonsense?
Well, it was my assumption and based on the comparison of an Argand
diagramm and a spacetime diagramm.
So my assumption was, that spacetime needed to be composed of complex
'somethings'.
My actual guess for 'somethings' were so called 'biquaterions' (aka
'complex four-vectors').
>>
>> Matter was in my model 'timelike stable patterns', hence with other
>> timelines also other matter should show up.
>>
>> (In case of 'backwards time' I would expect 'anti-matter'.)
>>
>> See here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
> This is for sure meaningless nonsense.
>
This was my own idea and meaningful for me.
If you don't like it, than feel free to dislike it.
But nature is like nature is and that will most likely not depend on you.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-08 21:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <TlzFQ.87703$Cyr6.47024@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666536 |
Den 07.10.2025 10:31, skrev Thomas Heger: > Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 13:51 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 05.10.2025 11:16, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 21:00 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:20, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> >>>>> But we bring structure to spacetime, if we are somewhere within >>>>> spacetime. >>>>> >>>>> This means: >>>>> >>>>> you can go where ever you like, but you are always somewhere and >>>>> observe the world from there. >>>>> >>>>> This would serve as kind of 'cut', since some aspects of spacetime >>>>> appear as stable and some don't. >>>>> >>>>> Those 'stable patterns' are what we call 'matter', while the moving >>>>> aspects are, what we call 'radiation'. >>>>> >>>>> The nasty part: >>>>> >>>>> this distinction is not the same, if we move to somewhere else. >>>>> >>>>> So: matter could be recognized as radiation, if you watch from a >>>>> different perspective (or vice versa). >>>> >>>> Can you give a concrete example where an observer recognises >>>> 'something' as matter and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, >>>> recognise the same 'something' as radiation and not as matter? >> >>> >>> The best example is the photoelectric effect. >> >> So one observer will recognises the ejected electrons as matter >> and not as radiation and you, somewhere else, will recognise >> the ejected as radiation and not as matter? >> >> This is of course mindless babble. > > I had the idea, that what we call 'matter' are actually 'timelike stable > patterns'. > > So: since electrons are material objects, they need to be timelike stable. Electrons are 'matter'. > > But how do electrons look like if they are not stable? An electron and a positrons can annihilate to two gamma particles. But that doesn't happen in the photoelectric effect. > > Well, they would match the description of a photon. > > As empirical observation, which supports this claim I would use the > 'photoelectric effect'. This effect means, that if you shine light upon > a metal plate, it will become charged. Not necessarily. The metal that the light shines on will usually be part of an electric circuit which will keep the metal neutral. But let's start from the beginning. In a metal the electrons in the conduction band are not bound to any particular atom. There is a potential difference φ between the most energetic electrons in the conduction band and the surface of the metal. That means that the energy to lift the electron out of the metal is eφ. This energy is called the 'work function' and is different for different metals. The energy of a photon is hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon When a photon with energy hf = eφ hits the electron, the electron will be ejected from the metal with kinetic energy K = 0. If hf < eφ no electron is ejected. If hf > eφ then the kinetic energy of the ejected electron is: K = hf - eφ Concrete example: the work function for Cu is ≈ 5 eV ≈ 8e-19 J The lowest frequency f of the photon that will eject an electron is: f = eφ/h ≈ 1.2 PHz λ = c/f ≈ 250 nm So the longest wavelength that will eject an electron in Cu is 250 nm, which is in the UV spectrum.' Visible light will not make electrons be ejected from copper. (After having read the rest of your post I now realise that you are utterly ignorant of the most basic physics, and will not be able to understand anything of the above. You do not even know what 'the conduction band' is, do you?) > > That's why I think, that photons become electrons, if photons are > stopped by a metal sheet. You "think"! ROFL! You have heard about 'the photoelectric effect', but have no idea about what it is, So instead of looking up what 'the photoelectric effect' realty is, you "think" and dream up that in 'the photoelectric effect' photons become electrons. > > This 'become stopped' is a geometric relation in spacetime, because time > in a spacetime diagram is an axis. > > If a certain structure moves as radiation, it has an (complex) angle of > 45° towards the timeline. > > If it gets stopped, the angle is zero. > > Now both are king of 'helical screws', but the electron is 'the helix > squeezed flat' and circles horizontally (if the axis of time is placed > vertical). This is mindless nonsense. >>> >>> In this case the electron and the photon are actually the same thing, >>> while photons move and become 'electric' once the photon gets stopped. >> >> When a photon hits a material, an electron may be ejected if >> the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy. > > > That's what YOU think, not me. Right! 'The photoelectric effect' is what I think it is, not what you think. > >> But a photon and an electron are not the same thing, and >> a photon doesn't become electrons when they are stopped. > > Well, possibly I'm wrong, but the photoelectric effect says something else. You are not even wrong! What is void of meaning isn't even wrong. >> From whence do you get these ridiculous ideas? :-D > > Actually I wanted to connect QM and GR by a relatively simple method. > > I took spacetime of GR as real phyical entity and wanted to build the > items of QM from spacetime. > > So matter had to be 'timelike stable' and 'relative'. > > This means, that matter is only matter for some class of observers, > which share what I call a certain 'time domaine'. > > Others time domaines are possible and a change would alter the direction > of the axis of time. > > (This could go as far as towards the opposite direction.) > > This axis of time defines a certain context, where matter needs to be > stable to be actually matter. > > Then matter from other time domains is invisible or would be perceived > as radiation. How is it possible to write so much meaningless nonsense without realising that it is just that? Or do you realise it? <snip> -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-01 07:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dOHOP4oaoaFl-RHO0AK8N_AnFKk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666409 |
Le 01/10/2025 à 02:46, Richard Hachel a écrit : > One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincaré's article, reading what is > written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't progressed an inch. > It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a universe as a > rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few problems" if there are relative > movements at high speed. > Then we talk about time dilation. > We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't explain > anything at all. > Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting Poincaré's > theory rather than advancing it further. > Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position at point > A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B is true. But it is > completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a swallow is a swallow. > The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the clock, > which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of knowing what is > happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is there; that is, whether the > concept of the present moment is something flat, which he seems to assume without > thinking. We see this very clearly when he assumes that the speed of light is > constant (that is, the wave of the present moment) whether light (that is, > information) is moving away or approaching. > We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of > space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other, but with an > abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at an equal distance from > all the 3D points of the universe we are studying. It then becomes completely > impossible to conceive of what spacetime truly is, or its unique characteristics > for each observer; and the most fundamental truths about it become so perplexing > that when they are stated, they often elicit laughter. > > R.H. This is a bunch of confusion, nonsense, lies, fallacies and misunderstanding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 10:19 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <10ciu9k$27jn6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666409 |
Op 30/09/2025 om 21:46 schreef Richard Hachel: > One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincaré's article, reading > what is written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't > progressed an inch. > It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a universe > as a rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few problems" if there > are relative movements at high speed. > Then we talk about time dilation. > We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't > explain anything at all. > Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting > Poincaré's theory rather than advancing it further. > Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position > at point A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B > is true. But it is completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a > swallow is a swallow. > The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the > clock, which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of > knowing what is happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is there; > that is, whether the concept of the present moment is something flat, > which he seems to assume without thinking. We see this very clearly when > he assumes that the speed of light is constant (that is, the wave of the > present moment) whether light (that is, information) is moving away or > approaching. > We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure of > space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other, but > with an abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at an > equal distance from all the 3D points of the universe we are studying. > It then becomes completely impossible to conceive of what spacetime > truly is, or its unique characteristics for each observer; and the most > fundamental truths about it become so perplexing that when they are > stated, they often elicit laughter. Once you accept that light clocks are true clocks (and true meters, they're actually the ultimate calibration tools for both distance and time units), and how they behave relativistically in accordance to their reciprocal state of motion, you'll be aware to have acquired an intuitive grasp of (special) relativity features, and no longer feel the need to cause misery to poor Albert and his (admittedly much less intuitive) description of SRT. -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 15:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186e10d194757332$2675901$2551467$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666619 |
On 10/13/2025 3:19 PM, wugi wrote: > Op 30/09/2025 om 21:46 schreef Richard Hachel: >> One hundred and twenty years after Henri Poincaré's article, reading >> what is written today, we see that the problem of simultaneity hasn't >> progressed an inch. >> It would seem, sadly, that everyone continues to conceive of a >> universe as a rigid, flat Minkowski block, only posing "a few >> problems" if there are relative movements at high speed. >> Then we talk about time dilation. >> We then give some equations (some of which are wrong), and we don't >> explain anything at all. >> Albert Einstein did a great deal of harm to humanity by diverting >> Poincaré's theory rather than advancing it further. >> Certainly, his story about clock hands being set to a certain position >> at point A to record events at A, and those at B to record events at B >> is true. But it is completely ridiculous, because we are saying that a >> swallow is a swallow. >> The problem is the synchronization, not of events occurring near the >> clock, which we don't care about, since a swallow is a swallow, but of >> knowing what is happening elsewhere, and what the actual time is >> there; that is, whether the concept of the present moment is something >> flat, which he seems to assume without thinking. We see this very >> clearly when he assumes that the speed of light is constant (that is, >> the wave of the present moment) whether light (that is, information) >> is moving away or approaching. >> We then enter into a complete misunderstanding of the real structure >> of space-time, and we synchronize all the clocks not with each other, >> but with an abstract entity placed in a virtual spatial dimension, at >> an equal distance from all the 3D points of the universe we are >> studying. It then becomes completely impossible to conceive of what >> spacetime truly is, or its unique characteristics for each observer; >> and the most fundamental truths about it become so perplexing that >> when they are stated, they often elicit laughter. > > Once you accept that light clocks are true clocks And that communism is the best political system possible...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ECZz8zEMQJpgeNLAAxdFjfPssio@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666619 |
Le 13/10/2025 à 15:19, wugi a écrit : > Once you accept that light clocks are true clocks (and true meters, > they're actually the ultimate calibration tools for both distance and > time units), and how they behave relativistically in accordance to their > reciprocal state of motion, you'll be aware to have acquired an > intuitive grasp of (special) relativity features, and no longer feel the > need to cause misery to poor Albert and his (admittedly much less > intuitive) description of SRT. Je crois que vous n'avez toujours pas compris, vous et d'autres bouffons comme Python, efji, ou quelques autres, qui était Richard Hachel. Cela rend les discussions forcément dramatiques. Lorsque je critique Albert Einstein, je ne le fais pas par simple fantaisie. Je le fais parce que sa métrique spatio-temporelle est fausse. Il décrit un univers abstrait du réel. Il faudrait quand même qu'on puisse se convaincre que je traite de la théorie de la relativité restreinte depuis 40 ans, et que je ne sui spas le crétin qu'on veut absolument déculotter, sans jamais y parvenir évidemment. Mais pour faire simple, puisque vous croyez avoir tout compris, et que le crétin, c'est moi, incapable de comprendre le Dieu Einstein (mort de rire), je vais vous poser une question très simple. Nous plaçons en orbite un canon à particules capable d'envoyer une particule à v=0.8c en direction de la lune. On admet que la distance à parcourir est de 300.000 kms. La particule touchera le sol lunaire en 1.25s. Mais la question n'est pas là. La question, fondamentale dans le système d'Hachel, contre le système d'Einstein, c'est : "Au moment où la particule sort du canon, à quelle distance se trouve la lune POUR la particule". Personne ne répond correctement à cette question, ni les newtoniens, ni les relativistes. Mais il parait que le crétin, c'est moi. Il parait que d'après ce qu'il paraitrait, je ne comprends pas la théorie de la relativité. Help! R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jay Wojewódzki <jeazwak@kj.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cjaue$2b8en$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666619 |
wugi wrote: > grasp of (special) relativity features, and no longer feel the need to > cause misery to poor Albert and his (admittedly much less intuitive) > description of SRT. nonsense, that's not his name; entered the patent office as Kózlow Ślusarski then he changed to an einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web