From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 14:37:46 -0700, The Starmaker
wrote:
>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!!!!
another reason You just tested positive for Stupid!...
Einstein's definition of simultaneity has NOTHING to do with
space or time...
they are Einstein's 'thought clocks'...
he's a con artists..
Einstein's definition of simultaneity has NOTHING to do with
space or time...it all has to do with...'relativity'.
NOTHING TO DO WITH ...CLOCKS!
oops, i think my thought clock is slow, i'm late again for class! i
thought it was earlier...
i need a new thought clock...
2 clocks
a cukoo clock
2 cuckoo clocks!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
