Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.physics.relativity    |    The theory of relativity    |    225,861 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 223,932 of 225,861    |
|    Thomas Heger to All    |
|    Re: The problem of simultaneity    |
|    13 Oct 25 08:31:00    |
      From: ttt_heg@web.de              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_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wT       xBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing              ...                     TH              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca