From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:51:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Den 07.10.2025 10:05, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >> Am Sonntag000005, 05.10.2025 um 12:38 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >>> Den 05.10.2025 11:00, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >>>> Am Samstag000004, 04.10.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:   
   >>>>> Den 02.10.2025 09:52, skrev Thomas Heger:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The universe has actually no time, because time is a LOCAL measure.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Your local time will always point into the future, but only into   
   >>>>>> your LOCAL future!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Other observers in other locations have a local future, too, but   
   >>>>>> that can actually be your past.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> You are on the Earth and I am on the Moon.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Can you give an example where my local future is yor local past?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> (Or vice versa if you prefer.)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not, because the distance between Moon and Earth is real valued.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you turn the axis of time upside down, this would be an 'imaginary   
   >>>> rotation'.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This would be a valid timeline, too, but in world, which is made from   
   >>>> anti-matter.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Such an 'anti-world' would be perfectly normal, though only for anti-   
   >>>> beings living there.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But we couldn't go there, because contact to anti-matter would make   
   >>>> us detonate instantly.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> TH   
   >>>   
   >>> So if my local future were your local past, then the world   
   >>> would explode?   
   >>   
   >> No, you would.   
   >>   
   >OK.   
   >Since you are not trying to defend your statement:   
   >   
   >  "Other observers in other locations have a local future,   
   >   too, but that can actually be your past."   
   >   
   >. . you must have realised that it is meaningless nonsense.   
   >   
   >BTW, you have still not responded to the following:   
   >   
   >Does that mean that you have understood Einstein's   
   >definition of simultaneity?   
   >Or are you unable to read and understand it?   
   >   
   >Please read it, and if you find a logical error in   
   >Einst5ein's derivation,  please point it out.   
   >   
   >-----------------------------------   
   >   
   >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity   
   >-------------------------------------------   
   >|  we establish   
   >|  by definition that the “time” required by light to travel   
   >|  from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from   
   >|  B to A."   
   >   
   >So in SR the speed of light is isotropic c by definition.   
   >   
   >This is a definition of simultaneity, se below.   
   >   
   >That two clocks are synchronous means that they   
   >simultaneously show the same.   
   >(This is the definition of "synchronous".)   
   >   
   >Einstein made 'an imaginary physical experiment':   
   >(a _thought experiment_)   
   >   
   >quote from § 1. Definition of Simultaneity   
   >-------------------------------------------   
   >| "Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B,   
   >| let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction   
   >| of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t?A."   
   >   
   >tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.   
   >tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.   
   >t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected   
   >     ray hits A.   
   >   
   >In a thought experiment measurements can be made with   
   >infinite precision, and we can sit at our desks and analyse it.   
   >   
   >The transit time is d/c where d is the distance between A and B.   
   >Let clock B be F ahead of clock A, where F is between 0 and   
   >a long time.   
   >   
   >We then have: tB  = tA + d/c + F   
   >and:          t'A = tB + d/c - F   
   >   
   >so:  (tB - tA)  = d/c + F   
   >      (t'A - tB) = d/c - F   
   >   
   >If (tB - tA) = (t'A - tB)  then (d/c + F) = (d/c - F),   
   >which is true only if F = 0,   
   >the clocks simultaneously show the same.   
   >   
   >This means:   
   >   
   >    TB = (TA + d/c)   
   >  When clock B shows TB clock A simultaneously   
   >  shows (TA + d/c), which is the same.   
   >   
   >    t'A = (tB + d/c)   
   >  When clock A shows t'A clock B simultaneously   
   >  shows (tB + d/c), which is the same.   
   >   
   >   
   >Thus:   
   >  In accordance with definition the two clocks are synchronous if   
   >       tB ? tA = t?A ? tB.   
   >   
   >This is a logical consequence of the postulates of SR   
   >and that the speed of light is isotropic.   
   >   
   >Einstein's definition of simultaneity is mathematically   
   >consistent.   
   >   
   >This doesn't say anything about whether or not SR's   
   >predictions are in accordance with measurements.   
   >Only real experiments can do that.   
      
      
   You just tested positive for Stupid!   
      
      
   A and B may have  simultaneously synchronous clocks but,   
   A and B are two different events in time.   
      
   if i'm in the middle of A and B, ...what time is it? B future or A's   
   past, or half past a cows ass..?   
      
      
   You just tested positive for Stupid!   
      
   Tel GG to send you some used panties...   
      
   let's get this romance going!!!!   
      
      
      
   --   
   The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,   
   to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,   
   and challenge the unchallengeable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)