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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Huey Moshetov <uve@veeo.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 07:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cabl5$3spml$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666586 |
The Starmaker wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> . . 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. you are an anti-israel jew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9dhiek5mf3vpc4a912m9fc52emcek62o4f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666588 |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 07:12:38 -0000 (UTC), Huey Moshetov <uve@veeo.ru> wrote: >The Starmaker wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:32:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> . . 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. > >you are an anti-israel jew. Who isn't???? Why do you think God sent Hitler to earth? peace on earth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 10:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186d152bc58548d4$1424352$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666586 |
On 10/9/2025 8:46 PM, The Starmaker 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. It IS ans assumption. Einstein's shark is a farm animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept for its wool, skin, and meat. Similarly to Riemann's straight line - which is a circle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ihiekh811ucf1a66u47jpv822eqij7al9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666589 |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:51:45 +0200, Maciej Wo?niak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >On 10/9/2025 8:46 PM, The Starmaker 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. >It IS ans assumption. Einstein's shark is a farm >animal with thick wool that eats grass and is kept >for its wool, skin, and meat. >Similarly to Riemann's straight line - which is >a circle. > > The only way to draw a straight line is in a circle. If you walk straight, don't you meet yourself????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 09:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mkuecdF5g7gU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666586 |
Am Donnerstag000009, 09.10.2025 um 20:46 schrieb The Starmaker:
...
>>> 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.
No, beause Einstein used (secretly) an absolute time and an absolute
space in SRT.
If you want to know something about local time, you need to read henry
Poincaré.>
> 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.
>
The use of Euclidean space in SRT defines also time as absolute measure.
this is so because Euclidean space is meant as 'timeless'.
This 'timeless' means, that time and geometry are treated as
fundamentally distict entities.
This in turn would make time 'external' to space itself ('the universe').
And as unlikely as you may think:
Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all.
TH
...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 09:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LTL5R06ZZHzFv-F-2xx4FpjgHEE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666595 |
Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all. > > TH Yes. It's relativistic. But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to nonsense if you take it a step too far. For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, who is considered a crank, does. It's the history of humanity in real life. Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his chronotropy beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on the outward journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster. It's impossible to understand as long as we act like an idiot and spit in Hachel's face, like all the idiots in the world do in many disciplines. They spit for the sake of spitting. Go explain to a guy like Python that the internal chronotropy of the other protagonist is less than that of the observer, but that this other protagonist's watch runs faster: the guy goes crazy. The guy doesn't understand anything anymore. So he starts insulting, mocking, defaming. He gets lost in the considerations of his little underpants. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 07:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ml3ihhF2j2qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666596 |
Am Samstag000011, 11.10.2025 um 11:28 schrieb Richard Hachel: > Le 11/10/2025 à 09:13, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >> Einstein's relativity theory isn't relativistic at all. >> >> TH > > Yes. > It's relativistic. > But the problem is that it confuses everything, and it leads to nonsense > if you take it a step too far. > For example, Albert Einstein, who is considered a god, was unable to > understand the difference between the relativity of chronotropy > and the relativity of durations, which is what Dr. Richard Hachel, who > is considered a crank, does. > It's the history of humanity in real life. > > Let's take Langevin's traveler as an example; Hachel is very precise > about the terms. On the traveler's return, for example, his chronotropy > beats slower than that of the terrestrial traveler (as on the outward > journey), but his watch nevertheless runs faster. I would use other words, but actually had the same impression of Einstein's text. I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about time as linear and countable. But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that isn't mentioned. What makes no sense, that are terms like 'bestimmte Ära' (certain era), because eras are not numbered. Also this concept of 'linear time' (embedded in 'big-bang theory') is most likely wrong. Einstein also used 'external time', which is similar to Newtons 'absolute time', while didn't use Poincare's 'local time'. So, in my opinion SRT isn't 'relativistic' enough. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 21:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <IQcHQ.52846$7E53.19542@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666616 |
Den 13.10.2025 07:59, skrev Thomas Heger: > > I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about > time as linear and countable. So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what the time is now. :-D What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET That's 'a point in time'. If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (Δt = t2 - t1) That's a duration (or 'interval'). So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration. > But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that > isn't mentioned. The 'starting point' is obviously 'the point in time' at the beginning of the duration in question. If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to use a clock we can set to zero at any time. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Williard Romeijnders <jimso@dilidi.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cjnsv$2fi9u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666623 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 13.10.2025 07:59, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >> time as linear and countable. > > So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what the time is > now. :-D > > What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. > > I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET That's > 'a point in time'. no, that's a timestamp. Aka an event, the instant you register the timestamps > If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET and arrived at > work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET Then I can say that the > 'time' I used to walk to work today was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (Δt > = t2 - t1) > That's a duration (or 'interval'). wrong again, before that you have to have another clock registering the timestamps, here the seconds. > If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to use a clock we > can set to zero at any time. lol, a duration implies having an oscillator with a given resolution. Go study clock signals, timing of control signals, data, addresses, deadlines etc. You are quite confused I can tell you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-13 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <s3pqekpagjgtdbvf6dqgj0b76219f3cgfq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666623 |
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 21:59:50 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >Den 13.10.2025 07:59, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >> time as linear and countable. > >So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what >the time is now. :-D > >What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. > >I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET >That's 'a point in time'. > >If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET >and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET >Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today >was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (?t = t2 - t1) >That's a duration (or 'interval'). > >So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration. > >> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >> isn't mentioned. > >The 'starting point' is obviously 'the point in time' at >the beginning of the duration in question. > >If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to >use a clock we can set to zero at any time. So...you are still at working using workplace computers to post this? Does the boss know??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-14 07:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186e45ca1d95b05c$6560148$2534374$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666623 |
On 10/13/2025 9:59 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET > and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET > Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today > was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (Δt = t2 - t1) > That's a duration (or 'interval'). > > So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration. It can be, indeed; your moronic religion has been trying to deny that, and CET doesn't exist according to it - but even such a fanatic idiot as you are didn't buy it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 09:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ml91d0F3casU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666623 |
Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > Den 13.10.2025 07:59, skrev Thomas Heger: >> >> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >> time as linear and countable. > > So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what > the time is now. :-D in a way.. Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute anchor' in time. The 'big-bang' was actually assumed to provide such a zero point in time. But the big-bang-theory is most likely wrong. Therefore, the universe does not have a beginning in some sort of explosion and also does not provide 'linear' (calendar like) timelines. The 'real deal' is actually complicated and so counter-intuitiv, that not too many people understand this idea. You should think about the axis of time as imaginary and the axes of space as real. But both are more or less the same and the axis of time could be rotated into space by a multiplication with i. This would create the impression of a 'big-bang'. But that isn't creating an entirely new universe, but a new subset of the real universe, which we cannot see. > > What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. > > I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET > That's 'a point in time'. > > If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET > and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET > Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today > was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (Δt = t2 - t1) > That's a duration (or 'interval'). > > So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration. No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point (= the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already. >> But usually we use some starting point as reference, while often that >> isn't mentioned. > > The 'starting point' is obviously 'the point in time' at > the beginning of the duration in question. > > If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to > use a clock we can set to zero at any time. > Sure, that's correct. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 10:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186e9e73f94430aa$7903728$3040052$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666642 |
On 10/15/2025 9:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> Den 13.10.2025 07:59, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> >>> I meant that time is always an interval, while Einstein thought about >>> time as linear and countable. >> >> So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what >> the time is now. :-D > > in a way.. > > Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute > anchor' in time. We're not monkeys anymore, we don't need don't need the nature to provide us a banana.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dusty Wronski <yst@ok.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10cnssk$3j7if$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666645 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 10/15/2025 9:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> So according to Thomas Heger it is impossible to say what the time is >>> now. :-D >> >> in a way.. >> Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute >> anchor' in time. > > We're not monkeys anymore, we don't need don't need the nature to > provide us a banana. excellent, finally a good answer from a polaker. Fuck those natzis into their ass, show no mercy.. since their cheap energy from the Russians, they forgot who they are, they thought they are an "economic powerhouse". Fuck their ass with no mercy. Please do. I start liking the polakers to an extent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-16 06:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mlb9vdFf3ktU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666645 |
Am Mittwoch000015, 15.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb Maciej Woźniak: ... >> Since nature does not provide little calendars, we have no 'absolute >> anchor' in time. > > > We're not monkeys anymore, we don't > need the nature to provide us a banana. > This is a very nice example of 'hubris': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 20:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rlRHQ.96$Aa1d.19@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666642 |
Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>
>> What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'.
>>
>> I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET
>> That's 'a point in time'.
>>
>> If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET
>> and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET
>> Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today
>> was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (Δt = t2 - t1)
>> That's a duration (or 'interval').
>>
>> So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration.
>
> No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point (=
> the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already.
You _know_ that we in the western world specifies "points in time"
with the Gregorian calendar and the time zones based on UTC.
>>
>> If we are only interested in durations, we may choose to
>> use a clock we can set to zero at any time.
We are free to choose our time scale any way we want.
But it must be precisely defined, it is not 'given by nature'.
Gregorian calendar and time zones based on UTC is
what 'everybody' uses in their everyday life.
You use your wristwatch to meet at work at the right
'point in time', don't you?
But for scientific work, we will probably use other definitions of
our time.
Se example below.
---------------------------------
Is there any particular reason why you haven't
responded to the following?
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 | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 20:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186ebeb2ea6d7ba0$2750891$2542420$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666653 |
On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >> Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > >>> >>> What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. >>> >>> I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET >>> That's 'a point in time'. >>> >>> If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET >>> and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET >>> Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today >>> was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (Δt = t2 - t1) >>> That's a duration (or 'interval'). >>> >>> So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration. >> >> No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point >> (= the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already. > You _know_ that we in the western world specifies "points in time" > with the Gregorian calendar and the time zones based on UTC. You don't _know_ that's exactly what your idiot guru has denied in his madness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Va1SZifSYU00wJehW_0TLgf0z1U@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666655 |
Le 15/10/2025 à 20:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : > On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >>> Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >> >>>> >>>> What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. >>>> >>>> I can say that the 'time' now is October 13, 2025, 14:34:32 CET >>>> That's 'a point in time'. >>>> >>>> If I left my home at t1 = October 13, 2025, 7:05:10 CET >>>> and arrived at work at t2 = October 13, 2025, 7:59:50 CET >>>> Then I can say that the 'time' I used to walk to work today >>>> was 54 minutes and 40 seconds. (Δt = t2 - t1) >>>> That's a duration (or 'interval'). >>>> >>>> So "time" can be both 'a point in time' and a duration. >>> >>> No: a point in time is also a duration, but where the reference point >>> (= the beginning of the interval) is assumed to be known already. >> You _know_ that we in the western world specifies "points in time" >> with the Gregorian calendar and the time zones based on UTC. > > You don't _know_ that's exactly what > [A.E.] has denied [...] Oh really? Where did he do that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | squalk <sq@net.inv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yJudnWIBP5qxYHL1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #666659 |
Python wrote: > Le 15/10/2025 à 20:49, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>> Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>> >>>>> >>>>> What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. ---------------------------------- Somewhere between the tick and the tock?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-15 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae00fkp2dumtrtsmcoenlspd1ierjt043e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666660 |
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:44:17 +0100, squalk <sq@net.inv> wrote: >Python wrote: >> Le 15/10/2025 à 20:49, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit : >>> On 10/15/2025 8:05 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 15.10.2025 09:44, skrev Thomas Heger: >>>>> Am Montag000013, 13.10.2025 um 21:59 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What the display on a 'clock' shows is a 'point in time'. > >---------------------------------- > >Somewhere between the tick and the tock? there is no such thing as a tock sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web